In December of 2025, the penthouse condominium of the recently completed Novus, built on the site of the former South Bank building in downtown Durham, sold for approximately 5.3 million dollars. At the time, this 5,500 sq ft unit received the distinction of being the single most expensive condo unit sold in North Carolina.

However in 2026, the county assessed taxable value of that unit was just $529,000 - meaning its owner, the “Durham Do Good Trust”, will likely owe about $5,700 in property taxes rather than $57,000.

The Trust benefited not from a tax assessment mistake, but rather a redevelopment incentive offered by the State and leveraged by developers throughout downtown. In 2021, the investor Five Points Center - Durham LLC applied for a “brownfield” designation on the future site of the Novus. As a result, the building will receive a partial tax exemption for the next five years.

In 1997, the North Carolina General Assembly passed the Brownfields Property Reuse Act. The goal of this legislation was to encourage the redevelopment of “abandoned, idled or underused industrial and commercial properties where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination”.

Top: Google Street view of the former South Bank building in June 2019. Bottom: Same vantage at the site of the Novus building, September 2025.

The act protected developers from environmental legal liability and in exchange, provided tax incentives that reduced the property tax valuation for five years, starting with a 90% reduction in the first year down to a 10% reduction in the fifth and final year. After that period, normal tax valuations would again apply.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality maintains publicly available records of current brownfields as well as extensive documentation of the application process and environmental studies performed on each application.

For the Novus property, the brownfield proposal cited its varied land use history over the previous 150 years, stating:

From 1884 until 1973 the site was utilized for tobacco warehousing, dwellings, church, cooperage, stores, restaurants, steam laundry, shoe repair, bicycle repair, automotive repair, filling station and dry cleaning. In 1973 the site was developed with a bank/office facility. Due to site history, there are suspected petroleum and chlorinated solvent impacts to the soil and groundwater.

After the payment of a fee and an environmental assessment, the state of North Carolina agreed that the “real and/or perceived environmental impacts” warranted a brownfield designation. Five Points Center - Durham, LLC passed this designation on to the developer of the Novus, 400 West Main Owner LLC, who would stand to accrue a tax benefit until 2030 on the apartments and commercial leases. They, in turn, passed the reduction on the for-sale condo units to their new owners, including the Durham Do Good Trust.

These entities are in good company.

Within the Durham Downtown Development Tier boundary - roughly defined by Geer Street in the north, Fayetteville Road in the east, Highway 147 in the south, and Duke East Campus in the west - about 15% of the total land area has been classified as a brownfield site at the time of this reporting.

Of all the parcels in this area that have sold and applied for building permits since January 2020, about 50% of the acreage received a brownfield designation. In terms of the city and county budgeting impact over this period, BCPI estimates around $600 million dollars of baseline property tax valuations would have been revised downward by brownfield tax reductions.

Brownfield sites within the Downtown Durham Development Tier. “Recorded” and “Active Eligible” sites appear in green and blue. “No Further Interest” locations denoted in red.

In addition to the Novus, other notable brownfield program participants in downtown Durham include Geerhouse Apartments, the downtown YMCA, the Vega condominium building, Foster on the Park Apartments, Beckon Apartments, the old Durham Police Headquarters, Brightleaf on Main Apartments, Heritage Square, every apartment building built between Jackie Robinson Dr and East Pettrigrew St, and the recently completed Wye Junction Apartments.

BCPI was not able to identify records for any brownfield applications in the urban core that were explicitly denied as a result of environmental testing.

However, three properties were listed as “no longer of interest” - including the site of the 2019 gas explosion between Duke and Gregson St, a portion of the American Tobacco Campus redevelopment, and the current Durham Police Headquarters between Elizabeth and Hood St. Reasons provided for this status included lack of communication from the site developer, unpaid application fees, and a developer application withdrawal.

Geerhouse Apartments, a brownfield located on the site of former automotive sales and repairs shops, reported in its proposal an underground storage tank removed in 1989 along with the presence of hydraulic lifts and a 55 gallon oil drum. According to their most recent valuation, the total improved value of Geerhouse was approximately $72,500,000 but they received $64,871,000 in exemptions because of their brownfield designation. This reduction translates to roughly $650,000 in property tax savings in 2025.

Left: Google Street view of the Motorco parking lot in 2019. Right: Same vantage, construction site of Geerhouse Apartments after a heavy rainfall, May 2022. In 2020, developers submitted paperwork declaring this area to be environmentally contaminated.

As a comparison, this first year tax valuation reduction is about ten times the amount that the nearby Liberty Warehouse apartments saved (from a $6,400,000 total valuation reduction) as a result of the county assessor’s controversial use of income value rather than cost value in its appraisal for 2025.

Down the road at 703 Washington St, the owner of the recently completed Wye Junction Apartments will receive a similar $59,000,000 exemption in their 2026 tax appraisal.

At a combined tax rate of about 1%, the exemptions on Geerhouse and Wye Junction would add up to about $1,230,000 in foregone city and county tax revenue in their first year of operation. The municipal portion of that would account for about 6% of the city’s projected nine million dollar budget shortfall as reported by INDY Week.

The state mandated tax incentives provided to brownfield developments join a growing list of reasons why, at least in the short term, the Durham tax base and resulting city services have perhaps not kept pace with the visible perception of wealth creation in downtown Durham. The developers and owners of those sites simply don’t have to pay very much property tax on them for the first five years of their existence.

Future brownfield applications across the state are eligible to receive public comment, notices for which are generally mailed to the property neighbors and posted on the website for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.

Our kids deserve a system that delivers the basics: strong instruction, consistent leadership, and schools that prepare every student for long-term success. And we need a School Board that answers to Durham voters — not local political insiders. DPS cannot keep lurching from crisis to crisis (aftercare shortages, classified pay debacle, and mid-year bus transportation cuts) with no clear plan to improve student learning. We need leaders who restore stability, rebuild trust, and keep academics at the center of every decision.

Parents are also done with the outsized influence of political interest groups that try to predetermine outcomes and push narrow agendas — pressures that have directly fueled the dysfunction in DPS. Outgoing board members Emily Chavez (D1), Jessica Carda-Auten (D3), Natalie Beyer (D4), and current chair and incumbent Bettina Umstead (D2) have all been backed in past elections by the Durham Association of Educators, Durham for All, and the People’s Alliance. These groups supported the very leadership responsible for many of DPS’s problems, making their talk of “change” for this election cycle not just hollow — but fundamentally dishonest.

Parents want something different: schools that work, leaders who show up, and decisions guided by student outcomes — not political PACs. We volunteer, send supplies, chaperone trips, and fund this system with our taxes. In return, we expect transparency, responsible use of resources, and honest conversations about student learning. We support fair pay and better working conditions for staff, and we also expect competent financial management and clear priorities.

We’re asking for local steady leadership, higher governing standards, and a board that puts student learning first. We want people who engage openly, can work together to benefit students, and directly serve the public — not political interest groups.

Dilcy Burton (D1), Rachel Waltz (D2), Pete Crawford (D3), and Kristy Moore (D4) offer what this board has lacked: legal expertise, systems thinking, labor–management experience, and — most importantly — a genuine commitment to governing.

DPS can be better. It can be focused on students instead of adults and local PACs. And the candidates above are ready to speak up, do the work, and help build a school system worthy of every child in Durham.

Jasper Flemming, Former DPS District 1 BOE Candidate, Former DPS Parent, District 1 Voter

Girija Mahajan, DPS Parent and District 2 Voter

Vikki Vilcek, DPS Parent and District 3 Voter

Angie Blackwell, DPS Parent and District 4 Voter

This is the first op-ed submitted to and published by BCPI. For context, a long-time subscriber contacted BCPI to share that an attempt to submit this jointly-authored piece to another local publication missed unannounced submittal deadlines.

As long-time subscribers know, the earliest BCPI stories focused on school board news that was not being reported elsewhere. Harkening to those roots and also because the school board races on current ballots are not primaries but the actual general election, it felt important to give voice to voters’ concerns. Additional submissions to BCPI.durham@gmail.com on this topic are welcome.

BCPI and the data-journalism wing BCPI.OS will continue to publish reported stories, interviews and analysis independent of any outside editorial content that may also be posted. Even though BCPI has no editorial arm of any kind, these guest opinion columns will be named as “op-eds” due to familiarity with and expectations from readers about the term—as if the idea of being “opposite the editorial page” of a digital publication was even possible.

Political discourse, dialogue and disagreement are what make democracy… democratic. Enjoy the experiment.

Running a successful campaign, even at the municipal level, typically requires money, and a candidate’s approach to fundraising can be telling for voters. Who donates—and how much—is an indication not just of financial support but also of potential influence. Any candidate who expects to spend more than $1,000 is required to file a series of campaign finance reports with the Durham County Board of Elections—or face a fine. The first two series of those reports were recently posted, and of the eighteen candidates on the primary ballot for mayor and city council, ten provided a report of their funding activity during this critical early stage of their campaigns. (Two more rounds of reporting are due before the November 4 general election.)

BCPI.OS analyzed the publicly disclosed donations made to each campaign in 2025 (or since the last election, if the candidate is an incumbent). Donations were grouped by amount per donor, geography, and the self-reported occupations of donors.

Kopac has the most money and the most donors

Matt Kopac, a city council candidate in Ward 1, has raised more than $48,000 from over 180 donors this election cycle, significantly more than any other candidate. The majority of his donors gave less than $1,000, but over 35% of his total incoming funds came from donations of $1,000 or more.

The largest Kopac donation thus far reported was $2,500 from Nida for Durham, the political committee for current county commissioner Nida Allam. That donation was made on June 12, ten days before any other campaign donation was made to Kopac. Allam later made news in August when she alleged assault after being poked by Kopac’s opponent, Ward 1 incumbent DeDreana Freeman, at the People’s Alliance endorsement mixer. Allam’s prior financial affiliation with Kopac’s campaign was not reported in the August news coverage of the incident.

With a total of just over $25,000, Mayor Leonardo Williams has raised about half as much as Kopac. However, he has both a greater proportion and slightly greater number of large dollar donations that resulted in about 75% of his total funds coming from donations of $1,000 or more. Anjanee Bell, another mayoral candidate, has the third largest haul with a little less than $20,000. About 40% of her fundraising total has come from donations of $1,000 or more.

Elijah King, running in Ward 1, has raised the fourth largest total with a fairly even split between small, medium, and large donations. Not shown in the graphs, the bulk of King’s larger donations come from statewide Democratic Party interests. He received a $2,000 donation from the NC Democratic Party and an additional $1,000 from Jonathan Abram, a significant funder of Democratic candidates across the state and the father-in-law of current local state senator Sophia Chitlik.

Andrea Cazales, also in Ward 1, has the highest proportion of small donors. Most of her donations are $100 or less and the majority of her donations, including her single donation over $1,000, came from healthcare workers.

Mayoral candidate Pablo Friedman, and Ward 3 candidates Diana Medoff and Terry McCann have reported the least amount of money among those candidates declaring an intention to raise and spend funds. As of this reporting, Friedmann has reported self-funding of $1,706 and a donation from an apparent family member of $62. McCann has raised about $4,000 in total, $2,000 of which came from the Durham Republican Executive Committee. Medoff did not file the latest required reporting document and has only thus far reported two initial campaign contributions totaling $520, both from herself, in the opening days of her campaign.

The contest in Ward 2 has relatively little reported money involved. Mark-Anthony Middleton has raised the most in that race with just under $5,000, about 35% of which was raised from Durham residents. His largest donation of $1,000 came from a resident of Cary. The Middleton campaign recently submitted four years’ worth of late filing documents on August 15 and has faced numerous state fines for delinquent filings in the past.

Shanetta Burris is the only other candidate in Ward 2 raising funds in this race, but the Burris campaign has not submitted current fundraising information as of this reporting. Burris did report around $2,500 cash on hand to start the campaign, presumably from her previous attempt for an at-large council seat in 2023.

Six candidates committed to spending less than $1,000 on their campaigns, which allows them to forgo filing any regular campaign finance reports. Those six candidates are mayoral candidates Lloyd A. Phillips and Rafiq Zaidi, Ward 1 candidates Samaria McKenzie and Sheryl Smith, Ward 2 candidate Ashley N. Robbins and Ward 3 candidate Durant Long.

Less Than a Third of Williams’s and Bell’s Donations are from Durham

The majority of dollars contributed to Williams’s and Bell’s campaigns did not come from Durham. Collectively between the two largest campaigns for Durham’s top elected office, only 28% of donations thus far collected have originated from Durham voters. Williams has donors in California, DC, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia, while Bell has donors from California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Notably, Williams’s largest donation of $6,400 came from a former tech executive in California and Bell’s second largest donation of $1,800 was from a video producer in New Jersey.

In absolute terms, Kopac received the highest amount of out-of-state donations at nearly $12,000, but the majority of his total funds (at least 66%) originates from Durham.

DeDreana Freeman, the incumbent in Ward 1, has raised at least 81% of her $9,369 from within Durham with just one out-of-state donation of $100. She has received only two donations of at least $1,000, both from Durham addresses and both of which listed their profession as ‘Not Employed.’ Freeman has self-funded about 35% of her own campaign.

Chelsea Cook, the incumbent in Ward 3, has no known donors outside of Durham contributing to her roughly $7,000 total. Cook has self-funded almost 60% of her campaign thus far and has only one donor, a professor, who donated $1,000 or more.

Williams has the Most Donations from Real Estate Industry

Bell, King, Kopac, Middleton and Williams all reported donations from individuals who self-identified their profession as real-estate adjacent—either as investors, developers, architects, real estate agents or landlords.

Williams received the highest amount of real estate contributions—about $10,000—which made up 40% of his total fundraising so far this year. One of Williams’s largest donations came from the Triangle Apartment Association, an industry group representing multifamily developers and landlords. Bell received $2,615 from a real estate investor in Greensboro. Most of Kopac’s real estate donations were from local members of the sector with the exception being a $2,000 contribution from a realtor in Wisconsin.

‘Dark Money’ Probably Exists Too

One of the most talked-about developments in this election cycle is the emergence of nonprofits and political action committees (PACs) that endorse candidates, sometimes without disclosing their leadership or decision-making processes. A newly formed 501(c)(4) organization, Yes for Durham, recently endorsed four candidates: Williams, Kopac, Middleton and Medoff.

According to reporting from Indy Week, Yes for Durham was initially registered at an address owned by Ari Medoff, the husband of Ward 3 candidate Diana Medoff. The registration address was later updated to 208 Rigsbee Ave, but the leadership of Yes For Durham remains unpublished on their website.

While all four of the endorsed candidates issued statements distancing themselves to varying degrees from the group and calling for transparency, campaign finance records tell a more complicated story.

Kopac publicly called for transparency and indicated there had been no previous coordination between him and the group, yet records show he received a $1,000 donation from Ari Medoff on July 14, 2025, followed by another $750 contribution from a resident of 208 Rigsbee Ave on August 18—the same day Yes For Durham was initially registered and from the same address that Yes For Durham later used when the 501(c)(4) updated their registration on September 4.

Williams had indicated to the Indy Week that Ari Medoff helped start the organization but later “was not associated with it anymore.”

Shortly after the initial Indy article, Diana Medoff released a statement titled “A Commitment to Transparency,” where she confirmed her husband’s connection with the origins of the organization and committed to running a transparent campaign. However, her campaign did not file the most recently required financial disclosure report on time, casting an opaque cloud over the current finances of her campaign.

Limited available filings show Medoff had raised only $520 in funds, all from herself, in the initial days of the campaign. Given the breadth of Medoff’s campaign signage, texting efforts, mail flyers and therapy ponies at early voting polling stations, the public is missing a significant amount of campaign finance information from the Medoff campaign.

[Editor’s note: Though there is no evidence of any exchange of funding between candidates and Yes For Durham (and none are expected for that matter), 501(c)(4) organizations in general are not subject to the same campaign finance reporting rules or limits as candidate committees, which means a 501(c)(4) can effectively allow untraced and unlimited donations to be used on campaign materials such as mailers, flyers, signage, etc. that can bring direct benefit to candidates. The original Indy Week article provided more context to the precarity of the legal definitions and “boundaries” that, in the end, foster a rather lawless environment where “dark money”—funding from sources that are not publicly disclosed—can thrive.]

In Sum

Overall, across all contests, public filings show almost $140,000 raised so far from over 600 individual donations. About 55% of that total came from residents of Durham and a further 3% from small donations of unknown origin—but likely Durham as well. While the city council race in Ward 1 has the highest amount of fundraising overall, the mayoral race has received the most significant financial input from developers and donors living outside of Durham.

The next round of campaign financial reporting is required to be submitted by the campaigns no later than September 29 and will be publicly available some time after processing is complete.

Early voting continues through October 4. Election Day for the primary is Tuesday, October 7.

As campaign signs crop up across Durham neighborhoods and candidate forums draw engaged voters, the city finds itself at its biannual community-driven performance review. Four out of seven seats on Durham City Council are up for grabs including the mayor and the three ward representatives. Incumbents Mayor Leonardo Williams and council members Chelsea Cook, DeDreana Freeman, and Mark-Anthony Middleton are all seeking reelection and each facing challengers. Understanding how these incumbents voted during their time in office offers valuable insight for voters deciding who should lead Durham next.

As a legislative body, the city council has a number of key functions including approving the city budget, authorizing contracts, enacting ordinances and resolutions, and establishing city policies. Additionally, they appoint key personnel including the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk and members of various boards, committees, and commissions that help shape local governance.

While city council meetings may often appear procedural, the decisions made within them affect quality of life in Durham. From awarding millions of dollars in contracts to deciding which neighborhoods receive water and sewer services, the council’s votes determine how resources are allocated, which developments move forward, and what values the city chooses to uphold.

BCPI.OS took a look at every vote taken by the current council from the swearing in of the mayor and three at-large members in December 2023 through June 2025. Those votes were then categorized by council function and assigned a classification. The tally of those findings is available here, along with a detailed explanation of what constitutes each category.

These findings offer a lens into the council’s decision making over the past two years. Between December 2023 and July 2025, the council cast approximately 829 votes. An overwhelming 98.9% of those votes passed, and 96% of passing items were done so unanimously—suggesting broad agreement. But the 37 split votes, including seven that failed, expose ideological fault lines that could shape the outcome of this year’s election.

Consensus on core functions, divisions over development

Ordinances tied to zoning and annexation accounted for the majority of both split votes and failed votes, despite ordinances comprising just 18% of the council’s overall agenda. These votes often followed public hearings, drawing intense community scrutiny and media attention. Of the nine failed votes, six were ordinances. Five were ordinances related to rezonings and annexations - the other failed ordinance was a unanimous vote against revising a 2013 law to allow bow hunting of deer on properties of less than two acres.

Of the 37 total split votes, 28 were related to zoning/annexation. Many of those concerned the annexation of parcels into city limits and extension of municipal services. Between 2024 and 2025, this council approved annexation of 1,194 acres into the city limits.

Mayor Williams and council member Middleton voted in favor of every zoning map change and annexation except one (a unanimous vote against the Moriah Ridge annexation in February 2025). Council member Caballero supported all but four while Rist voted against five. Their consistent support for allowing changes to Durham’s development plans contrasts with more cautious stances from council members Baker, Cook and Freeman - revealing a divide over Durham’s development trajectory. Previous reporting by BCPI.OS delved more deeply into these development votes.

Meanwhile, contracts and appointments made up over half of the docket and received near universal support. Only one of the appointments had a split vote and all of them passed. Of the 325 contract votes, only two failed - both involving Shotspotter, a controversial gunshot technology. The contract for ShotSpotter appeared on the agenda twice - a three month extension to the existing contract failed 2-4 in December 2023 and a three year contract renewal failed 2-4 in March 2024. Mayor Williams and council member Middleton voted in favor of both the extension and the renewal, while the remaining council members voted against.

Other council business - taking procedural votes, approving plans, receiving and awarding grants, and declaring resolutions - took up about 30% of the votes and sailed through with little dissent. However, even resolutions, typically symbolic, weren’t immune to division. A resolution in February 2024 calling for an end to violence between Israel and Palestine split the council with Williams and Middleton voting against, while the remaining five council members supported the measure. Lastly, a special budget request to expand funding for a nonprofit summer camp also failed narrowly with Caballero and Rist joining the mayor and Middleton in opposition.

Who holds the power?

According to BCPI.OS data, council member Caballero has won every vote this term except one (a 3-3 tie that failed likely due to the absence of council member Middleton), meaning Caballero voted with the majority in 97% of split decisions. Her consistent alignment with successful outcomes makes her voting record the strongest predictor of city policy direction. Rist ranks second in influence, generally voting in tandem with Caballero.

Mayor Williams has supported nearly all motions brought before the council, casting just two dissenting votes on split decisions during his tenure as mayor. One was against a special summer camp funding request made outside normal budgeting procedures; the other was the resolution calling for an end to violence between Israel and Palestine.

Middleton, meanwhile, has cast four “no” votes on split motions that ultimately passed, including two where he stood alone—one concerning language in the Equal Business Opportunity Reform Program and another on a non-binding development plan for the former police station at 505 W Chapel Hill St.

On the other end of the spectrum, council members Nate Baker, Chelsea Cook, and DeDreana Freeman have voted against the majority in just over half of split decisions, signaling a more independent or oppositional stance. BCPI.OS found 11 votes where all three were united in opposition to the council majority. Most of these were related to rezoning for development proposals in the vicinities of Lick Creek and Sandy Creek. All eleven motions would pass in 4-3 decisions.

What this means for voters

As Durham voters prepare to cast their ballots, the council’s voting record offers a roadmap to each member’s priorities. While the Durham City Council largely aligned on the day to day operations of the city, they diverged on development and public safety. Voters satisfied with the city’s current direction may look to Caballero, Middleton, Rist or Williams - and their endorsed candidates - for continuity. Those seeking change may find alignment with Baker, Cook, Freeman, or other challengers.

As Durham heads into a consequential election season, these voting patterns offer more than just numbers—they reveal the values, priorities, and fault lines shaping the city’s future. Early voting begins on September 18 and the municipal primary will be on October 7.

At the end of February, many Durham homeowners received a letter from the Durham County Tax Administration containing the newly proposed valuation of their property, the result of a multi-year reappraisal process. State law mandates that such an evaluation occur at least every 8 years, and in 2022 the Durham County Commission voted to do so every 4 years moving forward. This process reappraises all properties to account for changes in the market, development potential, and physical changes to properties themselves.

The last such appraisal occurred in 2019. Due to the nationwide COVID-induced spikes in housing prices and more localized development interest in Durham, most valuations have increased significantly since 2019.

With the currently available data, outlined below, BCPI.OS has attempted to contextualize the sticker shock of that valuation relative to valuation changes county-wide.

The Currently Available Data:

79%: That is the county-wide average percent increase in property evaluation between 2024 and 2025 for likely tax-paying parcels that have been appraised so far.

Put another way, there are currently 120,242 parcels in Durham County with a 2025 value greater than $0 that could also be expected to be taxed (so notably, this excludes much of Duke University). Combined, those parcels have been valued this year at $72,856,909,736. Last year, that same set of parcels was valued at $40,662,569,044.

$1,998,554,334: That is the total 2024 value of the properties in Durham County that are currently valued at $0 (as of April 2). Not all properties in the county have been reappraised yet - generally these are commercial properties downtown and large apartments/condos. However, that should only amount to approximately 5% of the total county property value and would therefore have only a small impact on the total average percent value increase when complete.

1.3949%: That is the combined municipal + county tax rate in 2024. One’s total tax bill is calculated using their appraised property value and this combined tax rate. For the purpose of isolating the impact of the reassessment on one’s total tax bill—rather than the combined impact of the reassessment AND any increase/decrease in spending (BCPI.OS assumes here that this will be a revenue neutral reassessment). That is, the analysis assumes that as a result of the increase in valuation, the overall tax rate will decrease such that:

(2025 Tax Rate * 2025 Combined Property Value) = (2024 Tax Rate * 2024 Combined Property Value)

According to that equation, the increase in 2025 combined property value so far suggests that the final combined tax rate might come out to near .78%. Again, that depends on an overall budget roughly equal to the current one (around $652 million for the County and around $668 million for the City). That is… an assumption: either elected body could decide to pass any budget and adjust taxes as much as the majority would agree to.

Valuation appraisals do not themselves increase taxes or generate new funds—that authority lies only with our elected bodies—but rather appraisals simply seek to accurately assess changes in property values which would result in changes in the distribution of the tax burden across the collection of taxed parcels. The total collections should remain the same (unless changed by elected officials at budget adoption), but where those taxes are collected will change slightly: some will pay more, some will pay less.

Where Valuations Are Changing Fastest

With the data currently available and the assumptions outlined above, BCPI.OS projects that property owners who saw their property values increase by more than approximately 79% can also expect a net increase in their next total tax bill. Conversely, property owners who had less than an approximate 79% increase in valuation will likely pay less in net property taxes than they had in the previous year.

Visually, with current data, this analysis expects an increasing share of the tax burden to broadly fall on neighborhoods east of downtown. The average property owner in a neighborhood that is colored in purple or blue, like Trinity Park, Duke Forest, or Forest Hills, is more likely to see their overall property tax bill actually decrease next year. Someone living in a neighborhood highlighted in red or orange, such as Old East Durham or farther east in a subdivision, is more likely to see their total bill go up.

Biggest Gains, Smallest Gains

Below are calculated median statistics of valuation change by neighborhood and by land use type. These tables contain only neighborhoods that had at least 50 parcels and only land uses with at least 100 parcels of that land use type (or a combined value greater than $200 million). In each table, the top ten and bottom ten changes in percent terms are shown for each category.

At over a 150% increase, Old East Durham is the largest neighborhood with the largest median valuation change (Eastway Village is immediately adjacent). If the tax rate assumptions outlined above hold, that would translate to about a 40% increase in a typical tax bill. In Colony Park, the increase of 44.2% in value could translate to something like a 19% decrease in total tax bill.

Various types of “vacant” classified land use types saw the highest percent rates of increased valuation. The top one, “VAC RES/HOMEOWNERS”, contained nearly 2800 parcels which were valued at $1 each in 2024. In 2025, those are currently projected to be valued, on average, closer to $30,000 per parcel.

Conversely, various classifications of office and mixed use condo enjoyed the smallest valuation increases—and will likely pay less tax in real terms. As an example, if the future combined tax rate levied is indeed near approximately 0.8%, the owner of Liberty Warehouse Apartments will probably pay about $200,000 less in property taxes next year.

How to See Your Own

BCPI.OS accessed the parcel tax data used in this analysis from the Durham Open Data portal on April 2, 2025.

If you are interested in looking deeper, BCPI.OS is posting a public data file of parcel ID, site address, 2024 valuation, current 2025 valuation and a few additional metrics on percent changes in the linked Google Sheet below. There, one can search a parcel by address or ID to see how the valuation change stacks up to the county at large and if that property individually could be potentially preparing for either a tax increase or decrease.

BCPI Tax Predictor Lookup Tool

In a state where the General Assembly limits the power of local governments, regulating zoning and land use is one of the few areas where City Council can exercise unique control. Recently, that authority was limited by Senate Bill 382 enacted by the General Assembly (despite Governor Cooper’s earlier veto), which enshrouded additional restrictions on “down-zoning”—a municipal zoning practice that had been used to decrease the allowable density or reduce permitted uses for a given parcel.

“If I don't have the ability to truly proactively plan and mitigate growth and development in my city, I might as well pack my planning department up and send them home,” Durham Mayor Leonardo Williams told WRAL last month in response to the controversial bill.

Earlier this year, Williams expressed a different sentiment around the council's role in shaping development. “There seems to be this misperception that if the council says ‘no,’ then the [developer] can’t build. No. It just means that they’re going to build less,” he told Indy Week.

BCPI.OS investigated the development decisions Durham City Council has made and how they have leveraged their existing authority to guide development in Durham this past year. We reviewed all votes that took place in 2024 on zoning changes and consolidated annexations. Zoning changes allow a property to be used for a different purpose and/or density than previously planned for in existing zoning designations. Consolidated annexations allow a property to be incorporated into city limits to receive services like sewer and water. BCPI.OS tracked how each council member voted on all cases involving zoning changes and annexations and have made that record available here.

Zoning changes and annexation petitions are submitted through the Planning Department, where they are reviewed by staff. Once staff completes their review, the proposal goes before the Planning Commission which makes a recommendation to the City Council. Based on the comments of the Planning Commission, applicants may make changes to the project prior to appearing before City Council. Ultimately, the City Council decides whether to approve or deny a rezoning or annexation request. Council only gets to weigh in on projects that involve a zoning change or annexation; projects that already conform to the existing zoning do not require local legislative approval.

Overall, the City Council voted on 45 development cases in 2024, ranging from the creation of new subdivisions at the edges of city limits to a new zoning designation for parts of Duke campus. Of those 45 cases, all but three were approved, with 18 cases receiving unanimous approval. The Planning Commission recommended approval for 34 of the 45 cases and declined to recommend 11 cases. City Council concurred with the Planning Commission 78% of the time.

However, that concurrence rate flipped in the few instances where the Planning Commission unanimously declined recommendation of an application: of four cases unanimously failing at the Planning Commission, City Council voted for approval of three—overriding an unanimous Commission 75% of the time. (Note: development proposals are often amended—to various degrees and by the applicant’s discretion—following the Planning Commission’s recommendation vote but core project attributes often hold continuity throughout the proposal process.)

One of those cases was Virgil Road Assemblage, which proposed building 531 single-family homes and townhomes on 200 acres in southeast Durham. Within the proposal, there were several proffers—commitments volunteered by the developer that exceed requirements, including setting aside 3% of units as affordable and a one-time donation of $5,000 to Durham Public Schools. According to the zoning map change report prepared by the planning department, the project would have a $1.6 million impact in costs annually on the school system based on the number of projected students.

The case went before the Planning Commission on January 9, 2024. In their comments planning commissioners raised significant concerns about misalignment with the comprehensive plan, environmental impacts on Falls Lake, and infrastructure capacity. Several commissioners mentioned how the commitment to affordability and donations to Durham Public Schools were inadequate.

“The land consumptive pattern and auto dependency simply repeats much of what is occurring in this part of the county, as single-use residential, but extends development even further into the Rural-Residential lands. Cloaking sprawl in native landscaping is an unworthy tradeoff,” wrote Anthony Sease, a planning commissioner at the time.

By the time the project reached City Council on May 20, 2024, the developer had increased the proffers to 6% units as affordable for a longer time period and an increased donation to Durham Public Schools of $59,500 but had not made any other substantive changes to the development plan. The annexation was approved 4 to 3 with Council members Javiera Caballero, Mark-Anthony Middleton, Carl Rist and Mayor Williams voting in favor and Council members Nate Baker, Chelsea Cook and DeDreana Freeman voting against.

“This will not be the first time it’s uncomfortable and I guess each of us will have to determine what is the threshold for us as decision makers and leaders that will give us comfort that we’ll say, ‘OK, in this particular case, we can go past the future growth area.’ And that’s a question we're going to have to answer ourselves, but I like this project,” said Middleton prior to voting.

Shortly after that vote, Sease resigned from the planning commission citing this project in his resignation letter. He described Virgil Road and the surrounding area as “rampant suburban-style, disaggregated, environmentally degrading, almost exclusively residential, auto-dependent development,” and went on to say that these types of projects are “choices being endorsed favorably by Council.”

Tracking Council Votes on Development

Caballero, Middleton, Rist and Williams have been characterized as pro-development while Baker, Cook and Freeman are seen as more skeptical of development proposals. BCPI.OS looked to see whether their voting records reflect those reputations. Notably, Middleton and Williams voted in favor of all development cases that came before them this year. Caballero and Rist voted for all but two development cases and voted together 100% percent of the time. While Baker, Cook and Freeman’s records were more mixed, they still approved the majority of development cases. When all three were present they voted similarly 81% of the time but did not align in their voting as closely as other groupings. Meanwhile, Caballero, Middleton, Rist and Williams voted similarly 95% of the time when all four were present.

Of the three cases that did not pass this year, one project proposing 282 townhomes along Angier Ave at Cortez Drive was denied because Middleton was absent and the vote was tied 3 to 3. The other two cases relied on Caballero and Rist voting no. Wake Olive Apartments, which would have built up to 218 apartments in a rural-residential area along Wake Forest Highway, did not provide any affordable units and was determined to only meet 10 out of 23 policies applicable within the comprehensive plan. The other project, East Club Gateway, proposed a commercial development in a rural-residential area and had similar issues: no housing component and inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan.

During their campaigns for election, then-candidates were asked what they look for in a development plan. “We have many opportunities for win-wins with the development community but we must always hold development to a higher standard and live by the principle that whenever something new is built, that it makes our city better, not worse—greener, more equitable, and more sustainable,” wrote Baker.

Rist outlined seven principles that would guide his decision making including meeting the City’s affordable housing goals, increasing density in the urban core and protecting the natural environment.

“When evaluating development plans, I meticulously assess their impact on neighboring communities, as well as the level of resident engagement,” wrote Williams. “Density, affordability, and contributions toward the greater public good are also key factors I look for in a development plan.”

As we roll into 2025, Durhamites will have the chance—via local elections in October and November—to evaluate and vote on applications submitted for the seat of Mayor and all three Ward seats, which are presently occupied by Freeman (Ward 1), Middleton (Ward 2) and Cook (Ward 3). In the meantime, the Durham Planning Commission meets on the second Tuesday of each month, and City Council considers development projects (on an as-needed basis) at their regular business meetings on the first and third Monday of each month.

A special note to any interested voters who are NOT currently registered in Durham County: in order for your vote to be counted on Election Night this year, at this point you will need to Early Vote. Early voting ends Saturday at 3pm. You can register to vote in Durham County during early voting–more information is at the end of this article.

To assure your vote is counted in this election, you must be registered with the Durham Board of Elections (BOE). The Durham BOE maintains a database of over 250,000 local registered voters and is continuously updating their records as voters move into, out of and within the county. If you want to vote, it is important to provide accurate and updated information to the BOE, otherwise you run the risk of being identified as an “Inactive” voter which can eventually lead to being removed from the voter roll.

That first warning flag is what was issued to Durham Mayor, Leonardo Williams, earlier this year. From May 15, 2024 through September, Durham’s Mayor was officially listed as an “Inactive” voter in the public voter registration records.

While inactive voters are still considered registered voters according to the State Board of Elections, the designation identifies voters who have not voted in the last two federal election cycles and/or are registered at an address that the local BOE is unable to verify as a current residence.

As part of their regular maintenance work on the database of voters, the Durham BOE receives a list twice per year of change of address applications filed with the US Postal Service to cross-reference and update voter records. According to a public information request fulfilled by Derek Bowens, Director of Elections for Durham County, a list received from the USPS on January 8, 2024 showed the Mayor had filed a change of address with the postal service.

Per their official process, the Durham BOE sent address confirmation mailings to Mr. Williams’s address on file at the time, a Leigh Farm Road apartment, first on January 11, 2024 and again on February 15, 2024. Both mailing attempts were returned to the BOE as undeliverable, indicating that Mr. Williams no longer resided at that address.

However, as confirmed by the Durham BOE, Mr. Williams voted on March 5, 2024 at his former precinct and signed a certification notice affirming he had lived at the Leigh Farm Road address “for 30 days immediately prior to this election.” The postal service change of address notification and failed BOE contact mailings strongly suggest this was an improper voting address for Mr. Williams. 

All voters in North Carolina are asked twice to certify their address when they vote. First, they must present photo identification then verbally state their name and current address to begin the voting process. Once a poll worker confirms their identity and eligibility to vote at the stated address, an “Authorization to Vote” form is presented to the voter for review showing the stated name and declared address.

At the top of the page in all capital letters, the form states: “FRAUDULENTLY OR FALSELY COMPLETING THIS FORM IS A CLASS I FELONY UNDER CHAPTER 163 OF THE NC GENERAL STATUTES.” The voter is asked to sign this form to provide written certification that they have lived at the stated address for the last 30 days, they are a US Citizen, they are over 18 years of age and they have not been convicted of a felony that may disqualify them to vote.

Durham Mayor is Not Alone

It is unusual for a voter’s status to change to “Inactive” immediately after that voter had voted in an election, as occurred with Mr. Williams. Within the past month, the Durham Mayor has resolved his voter registration status and provided the BOE with an updated address, which now matches an address he had previously provided to the City on required disclosure forms.

Other public officials and candidates for office in North Carolina have had similar voting irregularity issues. WRAL reported in February this year that Brad Knott, a Republican candidate in Wake County for the 13th Congressional District, had been voting under his parents’ address for at least eight years while he had lived in his own house. WRAL made the report before the primary.

According to statements made by the Wake County District Attorney to WRAL, it appeared there would be no legal or prosecutorial consequences for Mr. Knott beyond possibly a verbal warning. Republican voters also appeared to overlook the issue: Knott would go on to win a special runoff election and is the Republican candidate on the ballot in the current general election.

In a much more serious allegation, former White House Chief of Staff and previous NC Congressional Republican Mark Meadows was accused of registering to vote in NC in the 2020 election at an address that he didn’t appear to reside. After months of investigation, the NC Attorney General’s office, led by Josh Stein, declined to pursue charges against Mr. Meadows.

How to Prevent Irregular Voting Behavior

Although investigations and prosecutions for misrepresenting your address when voting have been limited, there are several benefits (beyond the mere act of being truthful) to keeping your address up to date. For one, if you vote on Election Day at a local precinct, it is most likely you live closer to your correct precinct rather than the precinct of a former address. Secondly, the races on your ballot match the combination of candidates seeking to serve the area you live in, so in theory those candidates should be discussing and advocating for local issues that relate more to your current address.

Here are some simple steps to verify your current registration and best prepare yourself to vote in the current general election:

1. Visit the North Carolina State Board of Elections Voter Search website and type in your name to review your registration information. Even if you are currently considered an “Inactive” voter, you can still vote in this election–you’ll only need to verbally verify or update your current address when you check-in at the polling place (no additional documentation is required for “Inactive” voters, only a verbal confirmation and then review of your address update.)

2. If you are registered, you can scroll down on the Voter Search website and view your Sample Ballot. There are dozens of different ballot styles across Durham County, so it is worth looking at yours before voting so you can be prepared and know which races you’ll be voting on.

3. If you are not currently registered to vote in Durham County—whether you have moved here from out of state or from a different county—then at this point in order to vote and be guaranteed that your ballot will be counted on election night, you need to make a plan to Early Vote by 3pm Saturday at one of the twelve sites across the County. Early voting permits voters to perform on the spot new voter registration (“Same Day Voter Registration”). You’ll need to bring an acceptable photo identification as well as a document that proves your residency: a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, other government document, or a current document issued from the institution who issued the photo identification. (Digital forms of proof of residency are accepted.)

4. If you are already registered to vote in Durham County but you have moved to a new address within Durham County OR are currently listed as an “Inactive” voter, you are able to update your address when you show up to vote. If you are Early Voting today or tomorrow, you can do that at any of the twelve sites. If you are voting on Election Day this coming Tuesday, you can use this Election Day Polling Place Search link to search an address to find out where your Election Day precinct is. If you have moved within Durham, there is no need to visit your old precinct on Election Day—you can go directly to your new precinct and let them know you want to change your address. No documentation is required; your word and certification signature are your bond.

Voter ID is Now Required

New state law requiring photo ID went into effect last year, so this is the first presidential election with the requirement in place. Copies of ID—digital or paper— are not accepted; you must be able to present the actual ID card.

Photo ID is only used to establish reasonable resemblance between the person and the ID card. It does not matter what address is printed on the ID. There are many acceptable photo IDs including ID cards from numerous schools and places of employment. If you don’t have any photo ID, you can go to the Board of Elections office this Thursday or Friday to have a free photo ID made for you. The office does not issue photo IDs on Election Day or the day before. The Durham BOE has also recently moved to 3825 S. Roxboro Street Suite 101.

If you have any specific questions, the Durham BOE can be reached by phone at 919-560-0700.

Make a voting plan and be sure to vote regularly in this election!

Town-gown relationships are never easy, and the relationship between Durham and Duke University has a complicated history. Duke is Durham’s largest employer and has provided strategic investment and support to its development. At the same time, Duke owns a significant amount of property across the city, the majority of which is not subject to property taxes due to its nonprofit status. As the city navigates growth pressures, the relationship appears to be shifting once again with residents, community groups, and some public officials demanding more from the university. 

Earlier this year, Duke University put in two requests to rezone 13 of its parcels near East and Central Campus. Many of those parcels are currently zoned for specific uses, which meant the University was limited in its development plans. Rezoning them as University and College would give the university greater flexibility and consequently discretion over what they could build. Burch Avenue neighborhood was most directly affected by one of the requests, and under pressure from the neighborhood, Duke decided to withdraw its request to rezone the old laundry building on Gattis St. However, several parcels, including a large swath of Central Campus, are still up for debate since the City Council postponed their vote until October 7 and asked for more detailed development plans.  

At the same time, a campaign, Duke Respect Durham, launched in May with the goal of having Duke University and Duke University Health System make voluntary payments in lieu of taxes or PILOT. Several local unions and community organizations have supported the cause. A petition circulating reads, “No amount of philanthropy, strategic community impact plans, or research-based interventions can replace public institutions available to all, financed by all, and capable of being held accountable through public procedures.” The group is having its first campaign kickoff event this Saturday.

Previous reporting by BCPI examined the possibilities of a Duke PILOT and provided examples of other institutions who already do so. To better understand the extent of Duke’s property holdings and their zoning, BCPI.OS examined county property and tax records.  

How much property does Duke own? 

Duke University and Duke University Health System combined are one of the largest property owners in Durham. Together, they own 174 parcels with 121 buildings that cover over 3,300 total acres. The combined total tax valuation of these holdings in 2024 was over $675 million, representing the highest of any property owner in Durham. By comparison, the City’s holdings which include 1,120 parcels and 164 buildings across 8,548 acres, are valued at $557 million. 

The majority of Duke’s parcels (52%) are zoned UC or University and College. The designation gives Duke flexibility and control when it comes to zoning, allowing them to build everything from dormitories to stadiums. The remaining parcels have a mix of zoning classifications and include health centers, office buildings, two hotels, the golf course, and Duke Forest.  

Tax valuation of Duke’s parcels

The vast majority of Duke’s property is not subject to property tax, but it does pay taxes on properties that do not have an educational purpose. This year, 17 parcels had tax bills totaling $1.08 million. However, several of those parcels, most notably the J.B. Duke Hotel, are not taxed at their full value. Tax records show the total appraisal value of the hotel to be $36,147,907 which at the current rate would result in a tax bill of $502,455, but because only $5,783,649 is “taxable”, Duke pays $80,676 in 2024 taxes at the site.

In its 2023 “Annual Report on Impact and Engagement”, Duke reports paying $3.7 million in property taxes across the state. If its current property holdings in Durham were taxed at their current County appraised valuation, Duke would be paying over $9 million in local property tax.

Duke’s West Campus is listed by the Durham County tax administration as a single parcel with an assessed tax valuation of $340,629,108 but an annual tax bill of $0. If the parcel was not exempt from local property tax, the 2024 tax bill would be $4,751,435 based on current tax rates.

But a closer analysis by BCPI.OS shows the Duke West Campus parcel is significantly undervalued—by at least three to four times, meaning the tax revenue potential, if exemptions did not exist, could be more than $16 million for that parcel alone.

BCPI.OS collected tax and other property data for six other commercial and institutional properties across Durham that included sites containing a collection of uses that are also found–granted at a much grander scale–within the Duke West Campus tax parcel: a hospital, a stadium, classroom space, residences and a chapel. The six-parcel sample was comprised of:

• Duke Regional Hospital (formerly known as Durham Regional Hospital) and County Stadium, which together form a single tax parcel owned by Durham County

• Durham School of the Arts

• Residences at Erwin Mill (56 residential units in a repurposed warehouse setting)

• Berkshire Ninth Street Apartments (303 luxury residential units built in 2012)

• North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics

• Duke Memorial United Methodist Church

Collectively, the six-parcel sample has a total tax valuation of $341,586,683, nearly identical to the Duke West Campus parcel. However, the properties in the sample contain 2,008,934 square feet of building space compared to the Duke West Campus total of 6,884,305 square feet of reported building space, as determined by documents reviewed from the Duke Financial Services Budgets & Reporting and cross-referenced with Duke Campus Maps and the tax parcel boundaries. (Detailed summaries of the comparison are available at this link.)

The six-parcel sample has an average tax valuation of $170.03 per square foot of building space, which is 3.44 times higher than the Duke West Campus average of $49.48 per square foot. Of course, not every square foot of building space is identical for tax purposes, but the sample parcels were specifically chosen to provide a variety of age, building materials, parcel densities and use types to provide as accurate and reasonable as possible comparison.

The sample parcels contain 388 beds at Duke Regional Hospital, which is owned by the County but since 1998 has been operated in partnership with Duke University. By comparison, the Duke University Hospital within the West Campus parcel reports having 1,062 beds (2.74 times more) in addition to much more specialized equipment and research facilities within the rest of the Duke Medical Center.

The sample parcels contain 359 residential rental units and additional boarding for 680 students at the School of Science and Mathematics while Duke West Campus reports housing over 3,200 undergraduates in the on-campus quads.

Durham County Memorial Stadium seats 8,500 spectators, which is dwarfed by the 40,004-seat Wade Wallace Stadium on West Campus.

While it is understandable that the Durham County tax appraisal program does not expend its limited resources to provide an accurate valuation of the Duke West Campus parcel which still ultimately has a $0 tax bill, there is most likely an extreme undervaluation of the Duke West Campus parcel, which then strongly understates the amount that Duke “would be paying” in local property tax if they were not exempt.

In fact, this underassessment of tax valuation is not unique to Duke’s parcels. DataWorks NC published research work by Hudson Vaughan that showed commercial properties across Durham are systematically undervalued, resulting in over $35 million per year in lost tax revenue.

Although Duke’s presence in Durham has, like all large-scale activities and industries, brought some measurable economic benefits, it has also come at a cost to the community in forgone tax revenue and ultimately higher tax bills for its residents. The County will be reassessing property values in the coming year–it appears amid the backdrop of new community-based energy behind the concept that its wealthiest landholder should pitch in.

It has been eight months since the passage of the Simplified Code for Affordable Development text amendments (SCAD) by Durham City Council.

While the 4-3 passage of SCAD was controversial, one component which did have widespread appeal were provisions to make the permitting of new accessory dwelling units (ADUs) easier and give developers increased flexibility in determining their maximum size, layout and positioning on the parent parcel.

ADUs are having a moment in the public imagination as baby boomers consider downsizing, current homeowners think about generating an additional passive income, and younger millennials dream of owning really anything at all.

The desire to seize on this popularity during the SCAD approval process can be seen by the ADU forward opinion piece published in IndyWeek the day of SCAD’s final passage, and in the mentioning of ADUs ten times by both proponents and opponents of SCAD in the November 20, 2023 city council meeting. 

ADU New Builds

BCPI.OS evaluated the impact SCAD may have had on ADU development in town.

By searching building permit records for new construction with “Accessory Dwelling” in the description attribute, BCPI.OS constructed a time-series of ADU construction patterns over the last five years. Each bar represents either monthly total values for the total number of permits issued (Figure 1) or the monthly median values for the stated building cost (Figures 2, 3, and 4).

In terms of the number of new construction permits, one can see that ADUs were extremely rare prior to 2022 but became more popular in 2023. However, starting in the fall of 2023, that trend seems to be tapering off—leveling off at a rate comparable to those seen in 2022.

ADU Costs

Over the same period, the stated cost per square foot has been highly variable. This is largely due to the small sample size—despite the buzz and hope that ADUs will play a role in solving affordable housing—the actual number of units built is small and each is relatively expensive per square foot. Despite the variability from the available data, the cost per square foot after SCAD does seem to have ticked down relative to the increases in early 2023. 

However, in terms of total stated build cost, there is a much less discernible change at any point in the time series.

ADUs vs the Residential Market at Large

Remarkably, when looking at the same monthly median build cost for all residential new construction, there is an obvious inflection point in 2021 that does not apply for ADUs.

At least in the way these build cost values are estimated and/or reported by developers and builders to the city, Durham experienced an almost doubling of the price of new residential construction over a two month period in 2021. 

By comparing the stated costs for ADUs in Figure 3 to the stated cost for all construction in Figure 4, one can see along the vertical Y-axis that the landing point for median ADU stated cost falls just below the pre-2021 general average new build cost of around $150,000. 

Additionally, Figure 1 shows that the initial increase in new ADU permits lags this peculiarly step-changed rise in overall building stated costs by about one and half years.

At this time, BCPI.OS cannot independently verify the accuracy of these building permit cost estimates—or if the stated cost of building a home has at this point any correlation with the final price at which it is either sold on the market or rented to tenants.

So far, this analysis indicates that SCAD may have had an impact on reducing the square footage price of larger ADUs. But, it has not yet been found that SCAD has produced an influx of cheaper total cost ADUs. The number of monthly new permits has reduced since its passage—to approximately three a month—and the median ADU price remains largely unchanged.

Perhaps this thus far underwhelming result is simply because large projects are still just waiting to make it to the permitting phase. Until then, all that can be seen in the data is that SCAD has been somewhat successful in assisting developers sell some additional square footage but less so in assisting the city generate more units.

As Durham has become a hotspot for development, developers have sought to rezone parcels for residential use and higher density. At the same time, the need for affordable housing across the city has grown more acute. Unable to mandate a certain percentage of new development be affordable under state law, the City has encouraged developers to make proffers—voluntary contributions in the form of cash payments, affordable units, or other improvements in exchange for changing the zoning. Durham implemented the use of proffers in 2010, and the use of affordable housing proffers has increased significantly since 2021 as the city has become a more competitive and lucrative development environment. 

“It may seem counterintuitive, but in order for developers to feel comfortable committing to affordable or income-restricted units, rents have to rise to a level that the market-rate units can cover the lower revenue that will be realized on the income-restricted units,” said Aaron Cain, principal planner with the City of Durham. 

Developers have also recognized that affordable housing wins points with City Council. Although the City Council and the Planning Department will be quick to point out they can’t deny a project on the basis of affordable housing, having an affordability component makes projects more palatable. 

A zoning change must go through a legislative approval process that includes neighborhood engagement, public notification and public hearings before the Planning Commission and Durham City Council. The public can provide comments during public hearings, but only nearby parcel owners are directly notified through mailing and signage. As an advisory body, the Planning Commission offers a recommendation while ultimate approval rests with City Council.

According to the 2023 annual report for the Durham Planning Commission, 33 of the 40 rezoning cases heard last year involved residential zoning. Of those, only 18 had an affordable housing component. 

“When there’s a zoning case where we’re looking at large swaths of land with many acres or there may have been a lot of neighborhood or community engagement, I’ve seen proffers used,” said Kimberly Cameron, who has served on the Planning Commission since 2020 and is currently acting as its chair. 

In some cases, the Planning Commission will deny a project and developers may make more generous proffers to increase the likelihood of approval before City Council. That’s what happened with Perry Farms, a project that was ultimately approved last November, despite significant concerns raised by surrounding residents and advocacy groups about environmental impacts. 

The Perry Farms developer was ultimately approved to build 665 townhomes and single-family residences on over 280 acres of forested land near Falls Lake. Initially submitted in September 2020 as “Kemp Road Subdivision”, the original proposal offered no affordable housing and was unanimously denied by the Planning Commission in July 2022. In the public hearing before city council in January 2023, the developer offered 3% of units as affordable and a one-time contribution to Durham Public Schools of $4,000. That would have been approximately a $6 donation per unit. The developer submitted a new rezoning request as “Perry Farm” in May 2023 that was approved by a 4-3 Council vote on November 6, 2023. The final proffers were 20 affordable units and a $71,000 contribution to Durham Public Schools, roughly 3% of total units and $107 per proposed unit. Given this project is projected to add 191 students to Durham Public Schools, that amounts to a one-time developer contribution of $372 per new student while the annual Durham County contribution per pupil is $5,374. 

Proffers are difficult to track

In the absence of resident advocacy or media attention, tracking a project from proposal to approval requires following a paper trail of applications, zoning change reports, Planning Commission agendas and City Council meeting minutes. The City keeps limited public records on proffers beyond a static table buried in a presentation or memo to public officials and an incomplete dashboard. And even then, sources conflict. 

The Durham Planning Dashboard shows 182 affordable unit proffers in 2022 and 596 in 2023 while a table in a presentation to the Joint City-County Planning Committee on April 3 this year shows 453 affordable unit proffers in 2022, of which 432 have been approved and 1,046 unit proffers in 2023, of which 222 had been approved. While the table shows units in 2020 and 2021, the dashboard only goes as far back as the end of 2021. Neither source defines affordability levels. And little to no information seems to exist online about payments to Durham Public Schools or the Dedicated Housing Fund. 

BCPI.OS put in a public records request in late January for all development projects that have provided financial or affordable unit proffers in the past five years, broken out by income restrictions. At the end of March, we received two spreadsheets showing 98 projects that had requested rezoning since 2019 and passed the approval process. Of these, 45 projects made only payments, 33 projects included affordable units, and 10 projects included both payments and affordable units. Unit count was not provided for projects that made cash payments. According to the aforementioned dashboard, there have been 247 rezoning requests since 2019 which suggest that about 40% make proffers of affordable units or cash payments. 

Limited affordability and financial benefit gained from proffers

In total, projects approved for rezoning between 2019 and 2023 made voluntary payments of $2.46 million to Durham Public Schools and $5.54 million to the Dedicated Housing Fund. The largest payment came from 751 South—a project that has been in the making for over a decade—which committed $1M to Durham Public School and $2M to the Dedicated Housing Fund to build 1,753 units off N.C. 751 in southern Durham. The average payment across the remaining projects was $78,181 per project. By comparison, affordable housing projects financed in part by the City’s affordable housing bond range from $4M to $31M for a single project. 

Of the 43 rezoning cases that made affordable housing proffers, 34 projects (81%) had less than 10% of total units as affordable. Eight projects involved 15% or more affordable units including four projects that were 100% affordable because of federal or municipal subsidies like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and the City’s affordable housing bond. These projects were already affordable so they weren't necessarily “volunteering” additional units. Three projects with a significant affordability component leveraged the Affordable Housing Density Bonus, which allows developers to exceed allowable density if they designate at least 15% of units as affordable. Combined, these projects proposed 16,671 new units with proffers of 1,528 affordable units.

Affordability is usually measured in terms of how much a household earns, referred to as area median income or AMI, and how much they spend on rent. Spending less than a third of  income on rent is considered affordable. Of the 1,528 affordable units proffers, 57 units (less than 4%) were for renters earning 30% area median income and below, which is where the biggest need is currently. Rents for these households would have to be less than $682 for a two-bedroom unit  The majority of units (96%) were for renters earning 60% - 80% AMI, which works out to between $1,365 - $1,820 for a two-bedroom unit.The affordability periods for these units ranged from 10 to 30 years, with the majority adhering to a 30-year affordability period, which aligns with city and federal housing policy. 

Improving the use of proffers

In the 2023 annual report, Planning Commission Chair, Kimberly Cameron, wrote “Durham will continue to face challenges of equity, diversity and affordability if the trend continues that 88% of rezoning cases are comprised of townhomes with 2 – 5% of the units designated at 80% AMI affordability.” 

“While we’re certainly grateful that more developers are doing proffers, the need is truly in the lower AMIs and at a higher percentage,” said Cameron. She’d like to see developers partner with local affordable housing providers to achieve deeper affordability. 

Former Planning Commissioner and current City Council member Nate Baker agrees with Cameron.  “We need to establish better zoning practices so that we can stop having to negotiate affordability through proffers. And we also need to set higher expectations for developers,” said Baker.

With limited mechanisms and means to build new affordable housing, conditional zoning seems to represent an underutilized tool in the housing toolkit. Although Durham officials believe they can’t require a certain percentage of new development be affordable, interpretations of those statutes seemingly differ by locality, and local governments do have some flexibility and power in their conditional zoning processes and through development agreements. With development projects hurting local businesses, impacting the water quality, and not paying their share of taxes, the City could consider ways to extract greater benefits for public good.

Tonight (March 21), the Durham Board of Education will hear recommendations for yet another round of proposed salary schedule changes for classified workers.

Last month, the Durham School Board voted 5-2 to slash pay to over 1,300 non-instructional classified workers, including decreasing pay to over 1,000 workers who make less than $43,450 per year. The vote came following recommendations for that action from Interim Superintendent Catty Moore and Kerry Crutchfield, a semi-retired former budget director at Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools who was hired by the School Board as a part-time consultant in the wake of the suspension and subsequent resignation of former Chief Financial Officer Paul LaSieur.

Later tonight, the Board will hear again from Mr. Crutchfield as he presents his own version of a proposed comprehensive salary schedule that could impact approximately 2,200 workers at DPS. If the Board accepts the proposal, the new salary schedule would likely go into effect at the start of the fiscal year on July 1.

Mr. Crutchfield’s presentation at the February 22 Board meeting drew widespread consternation from DPS classified workers, parents and community members. Dozens of speakers lined up to use their allotted one minute of speaking time to dispel numerous talking points from the presentation and to try to compel Board members to not further fracture trust by cutting worker pay.

Before hiring Mr. Crutchfield to perform this work, the Board dismissed the salary schedule created by Hurd, Isenhour, Lopes, LLC (HIL), a consultant group who was paid $124,686.53 in FY22-23 according to DPS records.

The HIL team interviewed approximately 70 classified workers to build their initial report, which was received by an enthusiastic and receptive School Board on January 12, 2023. Board Member Natalie Beyer, charting a pro-worker position, even declared that she felt the pay increases called for by the report did not go far enough, asking if the increases would “be enough to hold our people.”

One year later, Ms. Beyer would go on to vote three times last month to cut those same workers’ salaries, finally winning over a majority of her peers at her third vote.

The HIL study took months to collect data, conduct interviews and make comparisons to local labor markets. The School Board weren’t the only ones to celebrate the study; Mr. Crutchfield even commended the work numerous times during his presentation last month.

In contrast to the breadth of work to create the HIL study, Mr. Crutchfield has created his salary tables in the last four weeks while working in what he described as a “part-time” role. There is no evidence any classified workers were interviewed to help inform the newest proposed changes.

Lack of comparison to market conditions

Presentation slides and supporting documentation for tonight’s meeting have been posted to the DPS meeting portal. Unlike the HIL study which included over a dozen pages reporting on market conditions, the supporting documents for tonight’s meeting lack any identifiable market evaluation.

A detailed review of publicly-available salary schedules for FY23-24 for Wake County Public School System (WCPSS) and Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) shows that most classified positions under the proposed FY24-25 Crutchfield Plan still do not measure up to our neighboring peer districts.

The above table shows monthly classified worker salaries for a sample of positions that represent a majority of classified workers. Green cells in the WCPSS and CHCCS columns represent salaries that are already higher in those districts than the proposed DPS FY24-25 plan. There are a handful of red cells that denote the DPS salary schedule is higher than our neighbors’ salary. Most of those instances are for positions such as HVAC technicians, plumbers and fleet mechanics where neighboring districts have more job classes. Those workers have more opportunity for promotions and eventually higher salary attainment than similar DPS workers.

For example, a bus mechanic at DPS would top out as a Fleet Mechanic III and make a maximum of $5,282 per month. But in WCPSS, bus mechanics can be promoted through Mechanic V and even onward to Master Mechanic and make $6,275 per month or over 18% more than a top tier DPS bus mechanic. (CHCCS employs mechanics paid directly by the County, so they do not have an applicable bus mechanic pay scale.)

Occupational and physical therapists are the only analyzed position where DPS falls in the middle of our peers, but OTs and PTs in Wake County still consistently make thousands of dollars more per year than one would under the proposed DPS schedule.

Local Education Agencies (LEAs) have the option to contribute local funds to supplement any State contributions to classified salaries, according to NC G.S. § 115C‑12 (16) and the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. CHCCS adds up to 9.5% in local supplement above their classified worker salary schedules, which would mean a tenured OT or PT in CHCCS still would make more than one in DPS.

Workers, Board members still at a disconnect

At the March 7 work session, DPS physical therapist Christie Clem told Board members that the morale of classified workers did not improve after the 11% decision.

“I know there was an email sent out from the district saying that that decision ended a period of uncertainty and anxiety for classified employees. That’s not accurate; it hasn’t happened.”

She went on to state the majority of classified workers she has spoken with are not sure if they will still be at DPS next year due to the ongoing salary situation.

“We’ve been very passive pawns in this game where we sit and wait to see what happens to us next.”

Meanwhile, some Board members have been self-promoting the decision on social media and continue to espouse that they “look forward to continuing to advocate for all of our staff” despite voting against worker interests, refusing to ask the County for assistance and neglecting to work on more creative solutions.

The topic of classified worker salaries barely came up in the March 14 Joint Meeting with the Board of County Commissioners.

To underscore the disconnect with worker sentiment, Board member Millicent Rogers announced in the Joint Meeting: “We were able to provide an 11% pay increase. I am 39 years old, and I have never received an 11% pay increase in my life. That is huge.”

Again, the 11% pay “increase” amounted to an actual decrease in the wages for 1,389 workers, of which 1,027 make less than $43,450 per year.

For context, DPS has a $620 million annual operating budget with over $6 million in the “emergency” fund balance. It was determined it would cost $2.3 million to pay salaried classified workers for the rest of the fiscal year at the wages that had been declared to them in writing in October. That is the equivalent of a person who makes $50,000 per year saying they cannot find $185 in a pinch—and they don’t want to touch the nearly $500 sitting in their savings account.

Meeting details

Tonight’s School Board meeting will be held at 6:30pm on the third floor of the Fuller Building at 511 Cleveland St in downtown Durham. According to the meeting notice, it will be viewable on DPS Channel 4 (where available) and on YouTube at http:// bit.ly/DPSBOELiveYoutubeLink.

DISCLOSURE: The author, Brian Callaway, has spoken publicly in support of DPS classified workers receiving the full pay that was promised, and the author himself is a former DPS classified worker from 2014-19.

With the Democratic primary fast approaching, voters in Durham may be looking to endorsements by the city’s political action committees (PACs) and others to make their decisions. Two PACs have dominated Durham politics recently: the People’s Alliance (PA) and Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People (DCABP). In the past decade, every winning candidate in local races has been endorsed by at least one of these two PACs.

While less influential today, Friends of Durham is another long standing Durham PAC that enjoyed years of strong political sway. The Durham Association of Educators (DAE) has also been included in this analysis even though they are technically a teacher’s advocacy organization. Their behavior of making endorsements, printing electoral material and being present at the polls appear to constitute the legal definition of a PAC from NCGS § 163‑278.6(74), but the DAE has not registered locally as a PAC.

PACs are organized for the purpose of raising money to elect and defeat candidates and can give money to candidates, national party committees or other PACs. There are limits to how much PACs can donate to other committees per election; in North Carolina contributions are capped at $6,400. PACs also support endorsed candidates through mailers, advertisements, door knocking campaigns, and poll greeters. From a candidate’s perspective, getting an endorsement is a key part of campaign strategy because it expands their own infrastructure and reach. 

Any Durham voter can attest to the barrage of sample ballots provided to them before voting, conveniently color-coded for recognizability (pale green for the PA, goldenrod for the DCABP, etc), so that they may vote in accordance with PAC recommendations. What they may not understand is how these endorsements are made and who is behind them. 

Although each PAC has its own reputation and endorsement process, there are some similarities: candidates fill out questionnaires, a subset of PAC members interviews candidates and the general PAC membership then votes on endorsements. With the exceptions of the DAE and DCABP which both have more specific member requirements, PAC membership is often open to anyone “committed to and willing to uphold the organization’s mission and vision”—although payment of dues is often required to vote.

The People’s Alliance has had the largest endorsement participation lately with nearly 300 people attending the 2024 endorsement meeting according to their press release. It is common for less than 650 people to decide PAC endorsements in a community of more than 330,000 residents. That is less than 0.2% participating in the endorsement process.

To understand the possible influence of each PAC, BCPI.OS compared endorsements to election results in the last ten years across local governing boards: the Durham Board of Education, Durham County Commission, and Durham City Council. 

PAC Influence in Durham

Over the past decade, the PA had the highest rate of success with 87% of endorsed candidates for local governing boards elected. The DAE (81%), DCABP (49%), and Friends of Durham (51%) were also influential with considerable variability throughout election years.

The only notable decline of PA success occurred in the City Council elections of 2021, when the People’s Alliance endorsed a slate of candidates where three of the four had close ties to then-Councilmember Jillian Johnson. Marion Johnson (no relation) had been Jillian Johnson’s former campaign manager. AJ Williams worked for a nonprofit organization which Jillian Johnson founded and still served as Board Chair. Javiera Caballero, that year’s mayoral candidate who suspended her campaign immediately after the primary election, was appointed in 2018 with Jillian Johnson’s backing. The Indy Week expressed, “the council shouldn’t be an echo chamber” when they endorsed a slate nearly opposite of the People’s Alliance.

Durham Board of Education

Over the entire evaluation cycle, the People’s Alliance has successfully endorsed every candidate for the Board of Education. Though they are nonpartisan races, Board of Education elections take place during even-year partisan primary elections and are the last races on what are sometimes long ballots.

There were only seven total uncontested races within the Durham City Council, Durham County Commission, and the Durham Board of Education elections from 2013 to 2023, and six of those uncontested races were for School Board seats. Ballots during this 2024 primary feature three additional uncontested School Board races, meaning, including this election cycle, 39% of the last 23 School Board races have been uncontested.

Durham County Commission

The entire five-seat Durham Board of County Commissioners is selected on the same four-year term that matches the presidential election cycles. County Commissioner races are the only local governing board seats that are partisan races, which means the top five vote getters in the primaries from each party advance to the general election in November. There has not been a Republican to run for Durham County Commission since 2004, which effectively means the Democratic primary acts as the determinate election.

The County Commission approves budgets for the school system, the Sheriff’s Office, the library system, our local public health and social services programs and other general functions of the County government.

Durham City Council

Outside of the 2021 race discussed above, the People’s Alliance has fared well in City Council and Mayoral races over the entire period of review. City Council elections occur on odd years with a primary in October followed by a general election in November. Turnout is historically much lower for City Council races than the even year elections.

PACs TBD?

The success rate of PACs in Durham is a bit of a chicken-or-egg conundrum: do the endorsements make a candidate win or are the endorsements chasing after the winning candidates? The fact that no candidate has won without either the PA or DCABP endorsement and that these endorsements seem particularly effective for less-visible, down- ballot even-year races like the school board suggests endorsements do help candidates win in Durham.

But political trends are never a sure thing. Local PACs have come and gone, raised and fallen.

In a community facing urgent and pressing issues such as multiple public worker pay crises (sanitation and DPS), 911 dispatcher shortages, environmental challenges from sprawl and a housing crisis, Durham voters may find themselves questioning whether or not guiding ballots are leading to successful governing structures in our community.

The 2024 Primary Election is this Tuesday, March 5th with polls open at local precincts from 6:30AM - 7:30PM. Early voting concludes this Saturday, March 2nd at 3pm.

Additional information on Durham PACs discussed in this article and their endorsement processes are provided below.

Durham Association of Educators

Founded: Unknown (Durham County Library has documents from a teacher’s association with the County schools in 1898-1902 and a constitution and bylaws from a teacher’s association with the City schools in 1929)

Endorsement Process: Candidates are interviewed by an endorsement committee and then interested members (limited to Durham Public Schools educators, support staff, and administrators) discuss and vote on final endorsements. The self-stated mission of the DAE is a commitment to “developing worker leadership within Durham Public Schools, organizing our school buildings and communities, and winning the schools that our students, parents, and educators deserve.” Membership dues vary based on position with full-time teacher dues at over $500 per year and full-time classified staff dues at over $300 per year.

Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People

Founded: 1935

Endorsement Process: Candidates complete a questionnaire and are interviewed by the Durham Committee's political committee. Following the interview, the political committee makes recommendations to the Durham Committee's general body. The general body then votes on whether to accept the recommendation. A two-thirds majority vote is needed to overturn the recommendation. General body voting members must be in good standing, which means they pay their $25 in dues at least 30 days before the meeting in which they want to vote. 

Friends of Durham

Founded: 1989 

Endorsement Process: A committee of leaders in the Friends of Durham interviews candidates and presents its findings in a public forum for member approval. They use criteria that reflect their core values to select candidates which for this election cycle included: economic development, safe communities with an emphasis on funding law enforcement organizations, a high-quality educational system for all students, funded at the necessary levels for achievement, advancement and preparation for our students’ futures; effective governance with fiscal accountability for the tax revenues generated from all segments of Durham’s economic drivers.

People’s Alliance

Founded: 1976

Endorsement Process: Candidates complete a questionnaire and are interviewed by the PA’s Political Action Committee. The committee makes recommendations to the general body during the endorsement meeting. Members can debate the qualities and merits of any candidate during the meeting. Endorsements are decided by a majority vote of the membership. Anyone who has been a member for more than 60 days may vote at a PAC endorsement meeting. Past members can renew their membership up to the day of the endorsement meeting. New members can only vote if they join 60 days beforehand. Anyone who “in good conscience” ascribes to the vision of the People’s Alliance can join the People’s Alliance.  Individual membership dues are $50 per calendar year or $95 per household.

“Follow the money”—and you expect to find some answers. But in the cases of the campaign finance stories from NC Senate District 22 incumbent Mike Woodard and challenger Sophia Chitlik, there are no simple answers. Voters in northern, central and eastern Durham will decide in the March 5 primary which one becomes the nominee for the safely-Democratic seat.

2024 Campaign: Head-to-head finances

District 22 became heavily Democratic just ahead of the 2022 primary and now includes all of northern Durham County and large swaths of central and eastern Durham. Woodard won the last competitive primary for the seat in 2012 when he made the leap to the open NC Senate seat after being twice elected to Durham City Council as the Ward 3 member.

Woodard brings an accumulated campaign war chest from his previous Senate races. On the day Woodard filed for re-election on December 4, 2023, his campaign finance committee already had $49,388 in cash-on-hand available from previous fundraising mostly associated with his 2022 campaign. (Note: Woodard did unsuccessfully run for Durham Mayor in 2023, but the campaign finances for that race were held separate of his senatorial campaigns.)

This is Chitlik’s first political campaign, and she started her campaign finance committee on December 15, 2023, the same day she filed to run for the Senate seat. By December 31 she had quickly accumulated $34,089 in cash-on-hand, easily out-raising Woodard in the early days of their campaigns.

The chart above and all subsequent analyses in this article include figures as reported to the State Board of Elections in the last reporting period ending December 31, 2023 and all $1,000 and higher receipts that were reported up to February 26, 2024. The next campaign finance reports are due on Tuesday February 27.

Chitlik: Big family donations

The average contribution to the Chitlik campaign is $1,340 across 35 donors. Contributions from herself and close family members make up more than a third of her raised funds. Her husband’s parents contributed $6,400 each (which is the individual limit per election), and her husband and father contributed $1,000 each for a total of $14,800 from her immediate family.

Over half (55%) of Chitlik’s contributors—a combination of investors, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, real estate professionals, and teachers—do not live in North Carolina with nearly a quarter residing in California. Aside from family members and not including unidentified small donors, only three of Chitlik’s donors (reported so far) are registered to vote in District 22.

Although Chitlik may be entirely new to the political scene in North Carolina, her in-laws have an extensive history of making political donations in the state.

BCPI.OS has tabulated 244 political donations recorded by the Abram family in North Carolina: since 1991, those donations have totaled $886,526.45. For this analysis, the “Abram family” specifically refers to Chitlik’s husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.

There have been four calendar years when the Abram family has cumulatively donated over $100,000 to political causes in the state; each of those years include five-figure donations to political party apparatuses. (Unlike political campaigns, political party donations have no limits.)

The following table shows the largest groups and campaigns to receive Abram family donations, where all figures are cumulative donations.

Abram family donations included a Durham focus in 2023 with contributions to the Mayor, top vote-getter on Council and multiple members of the Durham delegation to the General Assembly.

Woodard: Reliance on funding from special interests

In this election season Woodard has raised a total of $16,650 as of the latest available campaign finance reports with $15,000 coming from corporate political action committees (PACs) and the balance of $1,650 in individual contributions. Eleven PACs representing pharmaceuticals, consumer loans, home builders, accountants and other industries have contributed so far with the largest contributions of $2,500 coming from NC Farm Bureau and NC Home Builders Association. The average PAC contribution was $1,364.

The majority (78%) of Woodard’s contributions come from North Carolina. Out of Woodard’s three individual contributors in 2023, only one of them is registered in District 22.

Since 2014, Woodard has received $107,347 from individuals and $287,132 from PACs, with non-party related PAC contributions spiking in 2020 and 2022 at $99,820 and $100,744, respectively.

Woodard’s campaign funding has increasingly come from PACs. In 2014, 71% of his campaign contributions were from individuals, but by 2023, 89% have come from PACs.

Although PAC contributions are nearly three times the figure Woodard has raised from individuals since 2014, there is not one PAC or specific industry that dominates the donor records. Records indicate the Woodard campaign has accepted donations from roughly 151 different PACs since 2014. (Note: due to poor or misleading reporting, many PAC names in the Woodard records are duplicated, misspelled or entered with minor variations such as inconsistent use of acronyms, making it difficult to ascertain the actual number of unique donor groups and their cumulative contributions.)

Durham voters to decide

Both candidates are affiliated with complicated campaign contribution histories and associations, and it will be up to voters to decide their preferences. Early Voting is already underway at select sites and continues until Saturday March 2. The Primary takes place Tuesday March 5 when all local precincts in Durham will be open.

After experiencing nearly six weeks of uncertainty over the future of their wages, DPS workers again packed the Staff Development Center on Thursday evening for the February Monthly Meeting of the Board of Education. Directly affected workers, allied teachers, and supportive parents spoke with a nearly unanimous message: “pay your workers what was promised.”

But over four hours later, that cry landed with a thud: the School Board voted to discard the pay schedule that had been implemented since October 2023 and instead revert to a flat raise of 11% based on previous FY22-23 salaries.

From data presented by the district, the changes will impact 1,875 classified staff comprising of maintenance workers, custodians, instructional assistants, occupational and physical therapists, bus mechanics, transportation support staff and other essential support staff.

Of the 1,875 workers affected, 1,389 or 74% will experience a pay decrease when the new salaries go into effect next month while 486 or 26% will experience a pay increase. A staggering 1,027 of those who will be losing wages currently make less than $43,450 per year—which is the starting salary of a first-year teacher at DPS.

Workers spoke

Sensing an unfavorable outcome, public comment on Thursday was more poignant.

DPS data analyst Aimee Toney told the Board she felt “utterly deflated and backed into a corner” as she pointed out that the proposals to revert to old salaries with a flat raise did nothing to alleviate wage compression, which was a consistently-stated purpose of the now-discarded HIL study compensation plan.

Barbara Tapper, a physical therapist for 25 years in the district, echoed concerns about how the proposals before the Board ignored wage compression. She also chastised the district for failing to meet with County officials this week.

Hub Farm educator and classified worker Hannah Ball-Damberg lamented the same points and pointed out that County Commission Vice Chair Nimasheena Burns issued a clear statement that moving the Joint Meeting was unacceptable.

Ball-Damberg emphatically closed her statement with a warning to the Board: “If you choose this hasty, insufficient and deeply harmful option, you are throwing out… any chance at repairing the trust and morale with all 5,000 of us DPS employees.”

For others, it was crystal clear that trust of the School Board had already been broken beyond repair.

DPS parent Girija Mahajan openly challenged the Board, warning, “If you vote for wage cuts for thousands of public sector workers tonight, I dare you to call yourself a progressive in this community again.”

DPS parent and Brogden Middle PTA Treasurer Pete Crawford directly told the entire School Board to resign. Waldo Fenner, DPS substitute teacher and longtime Durhamite, was the final speaker and elicited a mix of cheers and laughs when he stated he believes the Board should be arrested and put in jail since they had no intention to pay their workers.

The Vote

Despite the sentiment in the room from workers and their allies, the vote carried by a 5-2 margin on Thursday night. Board Chair Bettina Umstead and veteran-most member Natalie Beyer were the most unwavering in their vote. The proposal was on its third presentation in the month; this time Jessica Carda-Auten, Jovonia Lewis and Millicient Rogers joined the majority, while Vice Chair Emily Chavez and Alexandra Valladares made up the pair of dissenting votes.

On February 2 Umstead and Beyer were the first to vote for decreasing worker wages in a 2-5 vote and then, in another failed attempt, were joined by Jovonia Lewis in a 3-4 vote on February 8. (A special report released earlier this month by the Board attorneys identified that Umstead and Beyer had uniquely acquired foreknowledge of the budget problems in December 2023.)

This was also the first Board meeting for new Interim Superintendent Catty Moore, and her firm recommendation to repeal the salaries granted in October 2023 appeared to add the necessary support to pass the measure.

The Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People issued a statement on Monday in support of paying workers at their previously promised salaries and called on the County Commission to step in to secure funding if necessary. The People’s Alliance, the other major Political Action Committee special interest group in Durham, has thus far been silent on the issue outside of reposting a Durham Association of Educators’ post on Twitter and Facebook on January 25.

All seven sitting Board members were endorsed by the People’s Alliance. Only two members (Lewis and Valladares) were endorsed by the DCABP in their most recent elections.

The financial situation

Thursday’s meeting also brought forth new financial confusion. The public was told the district still is not clear how much over budget payments to workers have been to date.

The compensation plan implemented in October 2023 was initially announced and budgeted to cost $10.8 million, and DPS sent notification of salary adjustments to at least 1,875 classified staff in October 2023. Failures by DPS Finance and Human Resources caused the estimated annual cost to swell to what DPS had reported to be around $20 million to continue to pay workers this fiscal year at the rates promised.

At previous meetings in January and February, the Board authorized stopgap funding so workers could continue to receive their promised pay through February. On Thursday evening the public learned that the previously stated cost estimate of that stopgap funding ($700,000 per month) neglected to include non-salaried hourly workers who also received pay increases—which adds a previously unaccounted for $300,000 per month.

It is unclear how DPS tracks ongoing expenses given that, at this stage of the six-week crisis, fundamental data points are still not well-established. MS-DOS based software (hyperlinked for our GenZ and young Millennial readers) has been discussed at recent Board meetings.

On Thursday evening DPS administration acknowledged that over $6 million currently sits in the district’s fund balance—the accumulation of unspent funds or unbudgeted revenues. Unlike our neighbors in Wake County and Orange County, Durham County and DPS do not appear to have a formal written policy about how to handle fund balance at the school district.

DPS staff have repeatedly stated that “best practice” is to maintain 8% of the operating budget in fund balance. Wake County Public School System policy states the district must give back anything over 6% to the County. Orange County sets a target of 5.5% for their school districts. Durham County Commissioners have repeatedly told the School Board not to maintain balances in the fund balance.

Discussion on Thursday night included conversations about desiring to hold onto fund balance for a “rainy day” or a potential emergency that could transpire, ostensibly not viewing the current situation as an “emergency.”

Since budget errors by DPS administration became public on January 12, the following events have occurred at the district:

• Resignation of the Chief Financial Officer

• Resignation of the Superintendent

• Multiple days of widespread school bus shortages due to worker absences

• Multiple district-wide cancellations of school days due to worker absences

• Over 1800 workers living nearly six weeks under constant uncertainty about their wages

• A series of nine (9) School Board meetings during a period of time when only three (3) were scheduled

• Instant policy changes to require more stringent Board oversight of contracts

• Multiple press conferences to extend updates to the public.

It is unclear what type of worse weather phenomenon the district is waiting for to use their “rainy day” fund.

Despite calls from PACs, parents and workers for the School Board to meet with the County Commission to discuss the potential for stopgap funding and broach the likelihood of continuing funding for FY24-25, the School Board took their vote on this issue after skipping the regularly scheduled Joint Meeting with the County Commissioners that was supposed to happen this past Tuesday morning.

What’s next?

State law does apparently require advance notice of 30 days before changing a state worker’s salary, but it was unclear from Thursday’s meeting if the Board expects new salaries to be enacted in the March or April pay period. Veteran employees will see the biggest loss in salary, while newer hires with little work experience are expected to experience increases.

Workers are being told the Thursday salary repeal is a measure to secure the budget for the remainder of the year, and that it will be paired with the adoption of a new compensation plan. The part-time consulting comptroller has offered to build a new compensation plan within the next month, but that plan is not anticipated to solicit input from workers. By comparison, the HIL study interviewed about 70 staff across pay grades and job descriptions.

The consulting comptroller and the HIL consultants both have discussed that if districts do not have enough funding to fully implement a compensation study, they recommend a phased approach to implementation. No School Board members discussed the possibility of phasing, and the language in the option that was voted into action Thursday night explicitly calls for the elimination of the HIL compensation schedules.

It is unclear at this time how much employee input will be sought—especially after employee comment at the meeting was largely ignored. Either way, significant additional ongoing funding would be required in FY24-25 to bring classified workers back towards the salaries they have held the last several months.

And the FY24-25 budget presentation was the agenda item immediately following the Thursday night salary vote. The Interim Superintendent discussed the classified compensation item for less than 20 seconds in her over 18-minute budget presentation.

DISCLOSURE: The author, Brian Callaway, has spoken publicly in support of DPS classified workers receiving the full pay that was promised, and the author himself is a former DPS classified worker from 2014-19. Some local news outlets reported rather misleading headlines/photo choices and others added unclear content, so BCPI published this piece as a point-in-time piece from a non-revenue outlet. Mary Helen Moore’s piece in the Herald Sun was quite thorough and well-reported.

We’ve seen workers resort to work stoppages to express their dissatisfaction. Now the Durham Public Schools Board of Education is refusing to do its work.

The Boards of Education and County Commissioners hold regular joint meetings on a quarterly basis to discuss shared matters. The 2024 Joint Quarterly Meeting Schedule has been posted since at least January and names February 20, 2024 at 9am as the regularly scheduled meeting for this quarter.

But you won’t find the two groups talking today because the Board of Education backed out of the meeting and has requested to push the makeup date to after the March 5 election, according to officials BCPI spoke with from the Clerk to the Board’s office at the County on Monday.

School Board Chair Bettina Umstead and County Commission Chair Nida Allam declined to respond to repeated inquiries from BCPI seeking the reasons for punting the meeting, but the Clerk to the Board’s office stated the delay was because the School Board is already scheduled to meet again this week on Thursday February 22. (The Thursday meeting is the School Board’s regular monthly meeting and has been scheduled since last summer.)

Ongoing pay crisis

This work stoppage by the Board of Education comes as the district is in turmoil following the botched implementation of a comprehensive compensation adjustment. In October 2023, classified workers, who are comprised of non-certified (i.e., non-instructional) staff including maintenance, custodial, transportation, nutritional, instructional assistants, occupational & physical therapists, among others and who make up roughly half of all DPS staff, received notification of long-awaited salary adjustments to address wage compression and changes in market conditions.

For many, the adjustments were a welcome relief after enduring years of wage stagnation. The compensation study pointed out that while NC teachers saw cumulative raises of over 90% since 2000, classified and other state workers received just over 40% in raises, which was well below the Consumer Price Index of 68% over that time period.

After workers received written notification of their new salaries and even received multiple months of their new paychecks, DPS abruptly announced on January 12 that pay cuts were necessary due to “errors” and initially threatened to seek back payment from roughly 1300 classified workers who were impacted. (There are over 2200 classified workers in total.)

DPS administration later identified that they underestimated the total budgetary cost of the salary adjustments by roughly $7 million per year due to misunderstandings in how they would count years of experience for workers. Public sector employees are paid by fixed tabulations based on the salary grade of the position and number of years of experience the employee brings.

Workers have been outraged at the prospect of losing $7 million per year in cumulative salaries due to an internal accounting error and have packed subsequent School Board meetings where the topic has been discussed—but not yet resolved.

A crowd of mostly DPS workers packed the Staff Development Center on Thursday January 25, 2024, leads chants of “Start the meeting” after School Board members were over 40 minutes late to arrive at the meeting. Video courtesy of BCPI subscribers.

Meetings without resolution

The School Board has held public meetings on January 25, February 2, and February 8 to discuss the issue. At the two February meetings, DPS administration proposed multiple options to adjust pay moving forward, all of which would strip classified workers from millions in promised salaries.

Workers extended public comment that nearly uniformly demanded that actions be taken to preserve the salaries that were previously established. Many DPS parents have joined those calls and spoken in support of workers receiving what was promised.

The annual operating budget of Durham Public Schools, excluding capital outlay budgets, is over $620 million. The classified worker salary increases primarily come from local funding, and in FY23-24, Durham County allotted over $187 million in local funds to Durham Public Schools.

But DPS administration has been reporting to the School Board that they cannot afford the $2.3 million needed to continue paying workers throughout the fiscal year and have proposed various scenarios that would cut workers pay between $5.6 million and $8.9 million next year. Chair Umstead has been joined by Natalie Beyer and Jovonia Lewis in voting for a resolution that would eliminate $5.6 million in salaries, but the measure failed on February 8 with the other four members voting against it.

The Board has passed stop gap measures to remove the threat of the district seeking repayments from workers and to continue paying workers their promised wages for January and then again for February. But all the classified workers remain in a state of limbo about their salaries for March and beyond.

BOCC could be the ‘backstop’ to this ‘emergency’

Anticipating the pending Joint Meeting with the BOCC had given DPS workers and parents hope that a solution could be resolved to pay workers what DPS had promised. The County, having taxation authority, oversees funding disbursements to the public school system, Sheriff’s Office, library system, public health system and more in addition to the direct functions of the County government.

Parents like Girija Mahajan had requested the BOE and BOCC to move their joint meeting earlier than February 20 to address the ongoing crisis and now are left shellshocked at hearing the meeting has been pushed back.

“I don’t understand why the BOE wouldn’t take this opportunity to make the case on behalf of the impacted DPS workers, to ensure our school system can keep functioning. The BOCC is in a position to be the backstop if the district requested.”

DPS classified worker Geoff Seelen from the Hub Farm, who delivered an impassioned address to the School Board on February 2, had similar misgivings about the news that the Joint Meeting was unexpectedly delayed.

“It’s unfortunate the BOE would not use every tool at their disposal to bring about an equitable resolution to this financial emergency.”

What the future may hold

Sources indicate that the School Board is prepared to hear the same options previously offered from administration at Thursday’s BOE meeting, though the official meeting agenda and supporting documents have not been published yet. If just one more Board member joins Umstead, Beyer and Lewis, then classified workers could collectively lose millions in a single vote.

A classified worker who asked not to be named cited that they already know of workers who are poised to leave.

“I know one guy who has 30 years of experience but only one year that now counts. He says if they don’t get it together, he will leave.”

Ironically, the comprehensive compensation study that was supposed to help attract new employees to fill difficult-to-recruit positions could easily become the mechanism that drives existing employees away from the district. At the very least, this same classified worker has pointed to possible impacts on the quality of work for those who were to stay with the district.

“You get what you pay for,” they said, foreshadowing a possible collapse of morale among classified workers.

Disappointment in the School Board’s actions to fight for their workers was on Seelen’s mind too.

“It is ultimately the Board’s responsibility to lead and protect the workers in our district, and they have refused to do so.”

Already the district has had to shutdown multiple days due to a lack of adequate bus mechanics in attendance. It is unclear if mechanics may call out again if an agreeable resolution is not made on Thursday.

Mahajan lamented: “The Board can’t be upset about workers calling out if they are calling out themselves.”

The School Board next meets on Thursday February 22, 2024 at 6:30pm in the Staff Development Center at 2107 Hillandale Road. The entire Board can be reached by email at BOE@dpsnc.net

DISCLOSURE: The author, Brian Callaway, has spoken publicly in support of DPS classified workers receiving the full pay that was promised, and the author himself is a former DPS classified worker from 2014-19. Other local news outlets reported, erroneously, on Monday that the Joint Meeting was taking place on Tuesday, which necessitated the publishing of this article despite the author’s previous engagement on the matter.

In late October of last year, the North Carolina General Assembly overcame its (current) lingering legal challenges and passed final district maps for the next decade.

As a result, District 22, once covering Granville, Person and northern Durham counties is now circumscribed fully by Durham county alone - expanding farther south and east within its borders.

Above: District 22 as composed in 2020

Below: District 22 as will be used in 2024

Two months after this most recent district redraw was finalized, Sophia Chitlik Abram, a newcomer to Bull City politics, filed for her candidacy as a North Carolina State Senate candidate in District 22. For the first time in over 10 years, Mike Woodard is facing a primary challenger.

A Deeper Blue 22

The completed gerrymander has packed the Democratic voters in District 22 much tighter than they were in most previous maps. This “packing” of blue votes in 22 means that any Democratic candidate is likely to win their race more overwhelmingly. The motivation for this is so that any Republican in a tight race nearby (for example, District 18 in Wake County) will have fewer of those Democratic voters in their own district - and is thus more likely to narrowly squeak out a win as a result.

Without the presence of rural Granville and Person counties, the new District 22 has many more precincts that had voted overwhelmingly for Biden in 2020. In the 2020 election, 56% of the precincts that were included in that District 22 were won by Biden. Of the precincts included in the new District 22, 77% were won by Biden in 2020.

Moreover, in the 2020 election it appears that Woodard tended to underperform in the most heavily Democratic precincts.

Looking at the lower right hand side of the above plot, Woodard performed approximately 3-6 points worse than Biden in precincts where Biden won > 80% of the voters. But, in precincts where Biden won < 50% of votes (top left), Woodard performed generally the same or slightly better than Biden.

As a Democrat that performs better in relatively more conservative areas, Woodard has become vulnerable to a primary challenger in a much more urbanized and Democratic-leaning district.

A Compromised Voting Record

One reason for this vulnerability may lay in the criticism that Woodard has on some occasions been too willing to vote with the Republican majority. Such legislation that has drawn ire from the Left include bills that allow lenders to increase the maximum loan interest rates and a bill increasing the auditing requirements for municipal and county budgets. Governor Roy Cooper, a Democrat, attempted to veto both of these bills. 

A generous interpretation might be that - given Woodard had represented two rural counties as well as part of Durham - he has tried to represent all of his constituents rather than just the ones that voted for him.

Given that the makeup of that constituency has changed significantly, there are questions whether Woodard will change enough along with it. One should note, after all, that both of those controversial bills were passed in 2023 - after the precincts had been broadly redrawn close to the current Durham-heavy configuration just three months before the 2022 primary.

Election Day Looms

Woodard can count recent endorsements from the Indy Week and Planned Parenthood as respected sources of validation of his tenure in the legislature. Meanwhile both the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People and the People’s Alliance have endorsed Sophia Chitlik Abram. Abram, a former executive coach and an investor with no local political record since moving to Durham in 2018, has made the pitch that she can better represent the interests of this district - even if it may be from a rather cramped Democratic corner of the General Assembly.

Early voting begins Thursday February 15. Election Day is Tuesday March 5.

We gained a lot of early traction in 2023 when we were the only (albeit fledgling) outlet covering the resignation of Matt Sears, who unceremoniously became the second School Board member to resign shortly after re-election to take a paid position at the privately-run Durham Public Schools Foundation. We saw our continued coverage appear to change financial decisions at the School Board when DPS unexpectedly pumped the brakes on giving the same privately-run DPS Foundation $1 million of public funds with no agreement or even a coherent plan in place on how those funds would be utilized.

The first BCPI article to gain thousands upon thousands of views was our coverage of how other cities who host prestigious private universities have been collecting Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), voluntary negotiated payments from their untaxed institutional landholders whose endowments have ballooned into the billions of dollars. We’ve seen a newly-elected council member Tweet about the issue after we spoke with him on the topic and again during the height of his campaign. Although we haven’t heard Council discuss the matter yet, it does sound as though some wheels are turning in the community around the concept.

And of course there was SCAD. BCPI: Open Sources performed hours of research of public records to determine there was a massive gulf in land ownership and real estate interests between the public proponents and public opponents of SCAD. A slim majority of Council then passed the bulk of SCAD in the face of steep opposition from one of the broadest and deepest coalitions of residents to ever address Council on a public hearing topic.

As an exciting year in the Bull City comes to a close, we want to say thanks for being one of the thousands of Durhamites to follow along with us this year! From our beginnings with the School Board coverage to our data-centered BCPI: Open Sources analyses, we’ve seen tens of thousands of visits to our stories over this past year—so thank you for fueling this effort!

In celebration and reflection of the end of our first year of publishing, we put together a collection of our most and least read stories of the year, as measured by total visitors.

Most Read

1. Records show landlords, real estate investors largely make up SCAD proponents

2. Could Durham Ask Duke for Payment in Lieu of Taxes?

3. Durham's drinking water supply at risk on two fronts

Least Read

1. Amid DPS after-school care scarcity, false start to signup sparks confusion

2. School Board questions, alters plan to give DPS Foundation $1-million for housing

3. DPS Foundation could receive $1.28-million allotment from DPS, draft plan shows

We’d love your input to help shape our coverage in 2024, so please take a few minutes to fill out the survey below (you have to be a subscriber to participate—that’s a Substack rule, not ours). We remain committed to prioritizing access to information and being a free-to-read publication. Likewise, we have rejected generous offers of monetary sponsorship from some of our readers. If you’d like to help us out, please share our work with your neighbors and friends.

Happy new year to you!

Subscribe now

If you have other ideas for stories—either specific issues or broad categories—please leave a comment on this story or email us at bcpi.durham@gmail.com

Last month Durham elected a new mayor and three city council members. Now that they have taken office at last week’s Council meeting, they will have to come together to govern a city of distinct contrasts. A city proud of its newly expanded HEART program but struggling to answer emergency 911 calls. A city with a lot of new development and presumably tax revenue but whose essential city employees have fought repeatedly for cost of living adjustments to their pay and struggle with widespread understaffing.

When the Durham sanitation workers went on strike earlier this fall in response to these tensions, their campaign received widespread community support, perhaps driven by these diverging perspectives on the state of the city. How can a city undergoing such a transformative real estate boom proclaim poverty when it comes to adequately providing basic and essential services? How can the expectations of the citizens be so mismatched with the perceived abilities of the city to deliver? 

Part of the answer to that question may have its root in the property tax reappraisals of 2019. BCPI: Open Sources looked at the community’s property tax record to better understand the its largest source of revenue. 

In the 2022-2023 budget, property taxes generated an estimated $125 million dollar (49%) towards the city’s General Fund and an additional $67 million (84%) towards the city’s Debt and Solid Waste funds. The amount of revenue generated by property taxes can be modified in two ways: it can either change via a tax rate modification or from changes in the underlying land and improvement values.

In 2019, Durham underwent its most recent county-wide general tax reappraisal. The goal of this reappraisal was to “reset all real property tax values to current market value” and one is required to be done at least every eight years. (Durham has its next reappraisal scheduled for 2025 and has committed to beginning a four-year cycle of reappraisals after that. Also of note, the County manages the Tax Administration Office which conducts appraisals; the City and County then separately set their own tax rates to fund their respective operations.)

By comparing the tax records between 2018 and 2022, it is possible to estimate both total and percentage increase in property tax valuations from the 2019 reappraisal for the approximately 100,000 individual tax parcels that make up this county.

This analysis only includes parcels whose last known sale date was prior to January 1, 2017. To further minimize the influence that structural improvements might have on the value, any parcel associated with a building permit after January 1, 2020 was excluded.  In this way, BCPI.OS seeks to understand how identical structures were re-valued due only to overarching “market conditions.”

The median increase in the approximately 85,000 eligible property valuations after 2019 was approximately 20%. Of the neighborhoods represented by point locations in the below scatter plot, Colony Woods experienced the smallest median change at 4%, while Lyon Park saw the largest median increase at 57%.

Of the 24 available neighborhoods with a median home value exceeding $300,000, only four (17%) experienced a tax valuation increase at or above 20%. Of the 80 remaining neighborhoods with a median property value below $300,000, 42 of them (53%) saw their tax valuation increase by more than 20%. 

For example, the scatter plot above shows that after 2019, the Trinity Park neighborhood (in the bottom right quadrant) had a median assessed home valuation of $392,000. This represents an estimated 16% median increase from the previous tax valuation. Meanwhile, the Albright neighborhood (in the upper left quadrant), with a median home assessment of $142,000, experienced a 46% increase in their property tax valuation as a result of the 2019 reappraisal.

Homeowners in Albright, Walltown, East Durham, or Colonial Village, saw their property tax valuations go up on average close to 40%. Meanwhile, property valuations in Trinity Park and Forest Hills increased by approximately 15%. The wealth differential of these neighborhoods as expressed by home values is anticipated to mean longtime homeowners in neighborhoods like Walltown are more likely to struggle to afford their significantly higher property tax bills than those in neighboring Trinity Park who experienced on average much smaller tax increases.

Increases in property taxes do not only impact homeowners. The majority of landlords pass on the price of a property tax increase to their tenants via an increase in rent. BCPI.OS roughly estimated the percentage of rental units by identifying any parcel whose owner's mailing address differs from the parcel's physical address. The below scatter plot indicates that neighborhoods that saw a large increase in median tax appraisal, also tended to have proportionally higher density of rentals. As such, renters who do not benefit from real estate price-based wealth building would likely have been disproportionately impacted by this reappraisal.  

A change in property tax valuations does not exactly equate to a change in property taxes paid. The city can (and often does) reduce the overall property tax rate in conjunction with the reappraisal. For example, in the 2017-2018 budget the general fund levied a 33.99 cent tax rate compared to the 31.55 cents of the 2022-2023 budget. However, since that is a flat rate applied across the city, the change in valuation does constitute a direct change in relative tax burden of these neighborhoods. 

The differential impacts of the tax reappraisal on people’s pockets also inform their expectations of what the City should provide.

The average longtime resident of Walltown, for instance, facing a significant increase in their taxes or rent, might expect a comparable increase in the quality and availability of city services, infrastructure, and programming. They are left asking where their money is going without clear answers. Meanwhile, the average longtime resident of Trinity Park, paying a much more modest overall tax change (or perhaps even a decrease based on a rate reduction), might be very satisfied with what they have experienced.

Unless they choose to change the tax rate, the new city council will have to try to bridge the diverging expectations of its citizens using the limited revenues that they have. With the next mass reappraisal scheduled to occur in 2025, it will likely open yet another front in which a burgeoning city will need to continue wrestling with questions of wealth and equity.

Schoolhouse Rock could make an entertaining trilogy by following the trek of tonight’s main agenda item at the Durham City Council meeting. The nascent local “bill” is the 52-page text amendment to Durham’s development rules which has had an interesting journey since inception: the proposal, “Simplifying Codes for Affordable Development” or SCAD for short, was written, submitted and named by developers.

Tonight’s public hearing follows the August 21 surprise request for a 90-day continuance by Raleigh developer Jim Anthony, one of the official applicants of the text amendment. At the time Mr. Anthony stated he wanted “to allow for continued engagement with the community for those who feel they have been left out of the process.”

“It breaks my heart to see how divisive this has become in the community. Durham deserves better,” he opened with in August.

City Council subsequently summoned a taskforce of equal numbers of proponents and opponents. That taskforce met three times last month: October 24, October 25 and October 27.

Highlights from the taskforce meetings include the following:

• Bob Chapman, co-author of SCAD and longtime Durham developer, mentioned that there are several projects waiting for SCAD’s approval that will not happen without SCAD’s passage.

• Jim Anthony, the main SCAD applicant, stated that he would be willing to remove the highly controversial “Progressing Affordably Toward Housing” (PATH) program from the rest of SCAD to separately consider it later.

• Thomas Hennessey, who records show owns 94 properties mostly in East Durham, traveled into town from his residence in New Jersey to attend as a proponent.

• Tiana Joyner, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity, expressed numerous concerns about how Habitat’s name was misused by the applicants and publicly documented that SCAD proponents have harassed her and others affiliated with Habitat.

• Katie Ross, a retired attorney and resident of Bahama, shared thoughts from the perspective of County residents, who are poised to be impacted as well since Durham’s development code currently covers both the City and County (though the Board of County Commissioners would have to separately pass SCAD).

• Tom Miller, a member of the InterNeighborhood Council (INC) SCAD working group and Watts-Hillandale resident, expressed very specific concerns including elimination of buffers, increasing the maximum size of ADUs from 800 feet to 1200 feet, among others.

• Subject matter experts Dr. Danielle Spurlock from the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC and Dr. Kay Jowers from the Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability at Duke are conducting a joint research evaluation about SCAD-related topics and will have preliminary results in early 2024.

The taskforce mentioned formulating a joint statement to pass along to Council, but no such document or statement of agreement was created. Indeed, very few points of agreement were reached throughout the three sessions.

Some taskforce members, especially the opponents, suggested continuing to meet in the months ahead. Mayor Elaine O’Neal cited that taskforces typically operate for months to create a detailed final report that expresses their findings and/or recommendations to Council. She had recently participated in a taskforce that lasted for 18 months.

The SCAD proposal on the Council’s docket for this evening still stands at 52 pages in length, the exact length it was in its last version presented to Council. Although the taskforce spent nearly an hour discussing in detail the impact of SCAD on buffers, it appears that none of the language around buffers was altered in any way.

There is one noteworthy change in today’s version that was made to the highly controversial PATH Program. Originally, the program proposed to reduce the required timeframe for affordable units to remain affordable from the nationwide standard of 30 years to just 5 years. In the version of SCAD presented to Council tonight, that timeframe has been changed to 15 years.

Perhaps now there can be celebrations since the chocolate ration was increased from 30 to 15.

The Planning Department had previously written to Partners Against Crime District 1 (PAC1) and stated that SCAD “does not ensure any affordability created as a result of using the regulations, with the exception of the PATH program.”

That means the net impact of a set of regulation proposals—marketed explicitly by its writers as creating affordability—will be to decrease the length of time any affordable units that do get built would stay affordable.

Council is expected to pass SCAD today, especially after voters overwhelmingly indicated a preference for SCAD proponents in municipal elections earlier this month.

Councilmember Leo Williams, who voted on March 20 to try to pass SCAD before the Planning Department could even review it, was decisively elected to be the next mayor. Incumbent Councilmember Javiera Caballero, who had fawned over SCAD back in 2022 in Joint City County Planning Commission meetings, was easily re-elected to her seat, while Councilmember Dr. Monique Holsey-Hyman finished fifth in her bid to maintain her seat despite expressing a consistently skeptical stance towards SCAD.

Tonight will be the third and guaranteed final appearance for SCAD before this particular Council at 7pm tonight in City Hall as this will be the final regular Council meeting for Mayor O’Neal, who is stepping down, and Dr. Holsey-Hyman. The new mayor and two new councilmembers will be sworn in at the start of the next meeting on December 4.

To participate in tonight’s meeting, in-person attendees can sign up to speak at the Clerk’s desk upon arrival to Council Chambers. For digital communication and viewing, please observe these notes presented on the Council agenda:

Click here https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_BMCw6CJzQAuiMw8jB9NeCw to register to speak during the City Council Meeting on a below-listed agenda item. Your registration should be submitted by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council Meeting, and your access will be audio only.  Please note that the chat and Q&A functions will not be available in the virtual meeting.

Registration is not required to watch the City Council Meeting.  Click here for ways to watch.

Registration is not required to provide written comments to City Council.  Written comments can be submitted here by 2:00 p.m. on the day of City Council Meeting.

DISCLOSURE: The author, Brian Callaway, has spoken publicly against the SCAD amendments. The lack of local news coverage of SCAD proceedings necessitates publishing of this article despite the author’s previous engagement on the matter.

It was March 23, 2023 when the ground shook at City Hall. And aftershocks are still being discussed in many social and political circles of Durham.

That was the day explosive allegations from a Durham real estate developer against Councilmember Dr. Monique Holsey-Hyman were made public. At the same meeting, Councilmember Jillian Johnson introduced a resolution of censure against Dr. Holsey-Hyman for other unrelated issues: alleged misdealing with city staff regarding political work.

But it was a confrontation between councilmembers, caught on tape by local news outlets, that had the community buzzing and evening newsreels bleeping. Muddying the waters further, conflicting details emerged from folks who were in the room where it happened.

The INDY used testimony from an anonymous source (and said to be corroborated by a second unnamed witness) to report that punches were thrown by Councilmember DeDreana Freeman, striking both Mayor O’Neal and Councilmember Leonardo Williams. (The news outlet would later recycle that same narrative during their endorsement writeup in September.)

WRAL found a witness who went on-the-record to refute all claims of an outbreak of fisticuffs.

The three stories with an intertwined genesis—the extortion allegations, the censure threat and the heated confrontation—spent the entire summer seemingly evolving independent of one another. Then on September 19, they found another point of intersection after Dr. Holsey-Hyman was fully exonerated of all criminal accusations.

At a press conference the next day, Mayor Elaine O’Neal spoke out for the first time about the “profanity-laced” confrontation and censure proceedings from March 23. It was her nearly 5-minute address at this press conference that prompted BCPI to reach out to her, seeking further comment on these intriguing topics.

With just over a month remaining in her elected role, BCPI asked Mayor O’Neal a series of questions about the controversies (Part 1) and challenges (Part 2) facing Durham.

[This interview has been edited for length and clarity.]

After council member Dr. Monique Holsey-Hyman was cleared in September of an SBI investigation into extortion and misconduct allegations, you mentioned at a press conference she hosted that you have more to say on the topic. What are those things you’d like to say about the investigation and its fallout?

When [the March 23 work session in which the allegations and censure resolution against Holsey-Hyman were made public] ended, I told Monique, “I'm gonna walk you out, and I'll stand between the press so that you can get out safely without being bothered.” She was extremely emotionally distraught, as you might imagine. 

Suddenly I hear all of this noise, just kind of screaming. I left Monique and headed towards the screaming [which was in a private room for Council members adjacent to the main Council Chambers]. In my line of sight, there was a city employee and a pastor. After the meeting had concluded, the pastor said, “Can I have a word of prayer with y'all?” So [some Councilmembers] had stayed around for him to pray for us.

I could see that DeDreana [Freeman] was standing in front of Leo [Williams], and Mark-Anthony [Middleton] was behind Leo. DeDreana was crying and saying, “Get your hands off me, get your hands off me,” because Leo was doing this kind of rocking back and forth thing with her. He was protective of Mark-Anthony. But Mark is barking back at her. So I put my hands on his face and I said, ‘Mark, shut up and go in the bathroom. The press is out here. Be quiet.’  DeDreana then left.

At no point did I see her physically assault anybody. I did not see her raise a hand. I did see [Leo] jostling her, but I don’t know that he was trying to harm her in any way. But Mark was just as aggressive towards DeDreana. I don’t recollect Leo being hit–I did not see that. The first story was that I got punched. If anybody punches Elaine O’Neal, you’re going to know about it–or slap me or hit me, you’re going to know about it. So that did not happen–at all.

As you probably are aware, that is not the story that has been reported in local journalism.

I’m pretty sure it’s not.

The INDY reported from an anonymous source, which they said was one of the four people who were involved in or witnessed the altercation, that “Freeman did not calm down until Williams, with tears in his eyes, restrained her by pinning her to a wall in city hall.”

I did not witness that on that day or any day.

Did you not witness the tears in William’s eyes? Or the pinning of Freeman to the wall?

I witnessed the tears in his eyes. I said, “Leo, straighten up your face; the press is out there.” Like you would tell your child. That’s what I was telling him, “Straighten up your face.” You know, how we typically do as moms. But no, there was nobody back there pinned to a wall. Definitely not.

You had an objective witness out there. You had a pastor. And he also talked to the press. I recollect the things he said as being compatible with what I saw.

You are correct, the pastor did give testimony to WRAL. And after the press conference that Dr. Holsey-Hyman held, Williams released an updated statement on the incident, writing, “I intervened to stop a physical altercation. In the process, I put myself in harm's way, and while unintentional, I was hit and put my hands up to block further hits.”

If you look at the size of the four of us, [Williams] is absolutely the largest. So I don’t know how much physical harm he was in before I got to the scene. When I came in, they were talking to each other. There was nothing I saw that made me think someone was in danger of being physically struck. 

What I saw was a heated argument, and Black women talk with their hands. I do it all the time. And if you get us angry, you’re going to see a lot of head-shaking. That’s what we do. That’s more of what I saw. 

Do you have any thoughts on why Williams’s story differs from yours?

I have no way to ascertain how anyone thinks. He’s a very different person [now] than who I ran with. I didn’t know him well when we were on the same ticket [in 2021]. So I haven't the slightest idea of how he thinks. I can only tell you what I witnessed and ask that you check the sources that were there, and you figure out what makes sense to the reader.

At what point did you become aware that Williams had an interest in running for mayor?

Back when I was really enthusiastic about Leo, I told him, “You might want to consider running for mayor one day.” This was only a month or two [into my time as mayor]. I already knew that I would probably not support Mark-Anthony Middleton.

Now, when it came to the actual filing in this race, I had no idea [Leo was running] because we just don't communicate like that. So I found out pretty much when everybody else found out.

At Dr. Holsey-Hyman’s press conference, it sounded like you were not supportive of the investigation’s mechanisms. How and why would you have chosen a different method?

Remember my background: I'm coming in with a lawyer’s view. So in my mind, that was a fairly uncomplicated investigation. They were just going to have to talk to a couple of witnesses. I thought that any licensed attorney could probably handle that. Thinking about this kind of allegation hanging over her life, I wanted to hire a private attorney to conduct what I thought was a simple investigation. And that was going to be my vote.

It was just that simple: you get an attorney to interview witnesses; it is done, and we can move on. But that was not the course of action that was chosen by the majority [of Council].

The investigation that happened did fully exonerate Dr. Holsey-Hyman.

Yes, so it worked out, but it was just a very long time; it was actually from March to September. That's a long time for her, and we've watched her be traumatized by that. There are still a lot of people who don't even realize that she's been exonerated.

If you don't have a speedy trial, that leaves a whole lot of damage that can be done in one’s life. I watched her. She was being impacted every day. So I was thinking that we needed to get through it quickly, not only for her sake, but for the sake of the city, as well.

Do you believe there was any coordinated effort to discredit Dr. Holsey-Hyman?

I don't say that it was done at that instant, but afterwards, yes. It was clear that there was communication back and forth about who's going to call the press. Jillian [Johnson] agreed to draw up a censure that I was never going to agree to. There was an interchange back and forth on email. She put my name on the censure–something that has never been done before. So you know, it's like a lot of little threads. I don't know exactly who started it or how, but they certainly are out there [on social media about it]. They may not have started the storm, but I believe there were tentacles of them helping to blow it up.

You mentioned “they” and “them” a few times. Could you elaborate on who that refers to?

I know Javiera [Caballero] called me one morning and wanted me to sign on to some remarks with them about Kim [Rehberg, City Attorney], in support of Kim, and I declined to do that. And I know [Javiera] was telling Mark, Jillian and Leo, that the Mayor has declined to speak in support of Kim. So from my vantage point, they were [coordinating].

Why have you waited until now or at the September 20 press conference to present an explanation of what happened?

Because I told the public that I was not going to say anything until it was all over, and I tried to keep my word about that. Of course there have been a number of people to ask me for a statement, but  I decided that I would prefer this format. I do think that the public needs to be fully informed about what I saw so they can form their own determinations and decisions. I am about 35-40 days out [from the end of this mayoral term], so I think it's time to answer some of their questions.

This is election season now. And it's been said many times that Durham is an endorsement city, in that elections are decided by a network of endorsements from various power centers. What has been your perspective of the endorsement process within Durham?

Wow!  When I was a candidate I swore that I would never fill out another endorsement questionnaire. In my opinion it is like the new poll tax. When I was running [for mayor], I can remember actually crying–and I'm not a crier–about the way that those endorsement questionnaires were coming in and the amount of time required to fill them out. It was clear to me that if you did not have certain resources, you were not going to be allowed to be a part of the democratic process.

I figured out that a lot of [groups] have already made up their minds about [their endorsement]. I remember one [endorsement meeting] that I had with a group who interviewed me at one of the local high schools. I had heard, “You’re not going to get that endorsement.” But that’s okay, I’m going to go anyway. So afterwards, it comes back to me that [the organization is saying] I wasn't prepared. Me not prepared? What you're not going to do is catch an attorney or former judge not prepared when you are talking about verbal questions. They would set you up to come to these things, and then talk about your performance afterwards–and it was always going to be bad. But you knew going in you weren’t going to get their endorsement. I found it to be a facade.

That had not been my experience as an elected official for 25 years. I’ve had all kinds of races. I’ve worked with the PA [People’s Alliance], the Durham Committee [on the Affairs of Black People], the Durham Voter’s Alliance [a local organization in operation from 1972-2002]. So I know what it looks like to have a fair process. The stuff that is happening now? Not so!

What do you think of the influence of Durham's political action committees, or PACs, on the electoral process?

It has not been good in the last 17 or 18 years; it simply has not turned out to be good for this city. When I was a superior court judge, a district court judge, we worked with different PACs. They would work together. Nowadays there is so much disharmony, and in my opinion, Durham has not been well served.

Have you seen the PACs influence the governance process? And if so, how have you seen that play out with Council?

It's like a tangled web. It’s like they have their tentacles, and I'm not sure who the “they” are. I don't want to talk in conspiracy terms, but the tentacles of people from within these organizations and how they have been able to be led and be influenced and take that influence and kind of do a circular.

Durham is at an interesting time right now because there is a general election. We have a chance to influence who is on the Council. Do you have any thoughts you'd like to share with readers about this election?

Durham is at a crossroads right now, which is one of the reasons I'm intentionally speaking out  exactly at this point. On a seven-member Council, when the four-member majority vote together, things get accomplished. I recommend that voters check the readily available records of the meetings to make informed decisions before they cast their votes. All a citizen has to do is see how each of the members voted on the issues that were set before them. Check the record, Durham residents, and then realize that your vote is your voice of integrity and accountability.

Note: Polls are open for the General Election on Tuesday November 7, 2023. An acceptable photo ID is now required to vote. Voting takes place at your local precinct from 6:30am to 7:30pm. A sample ballot for all Durham residents is available online.